On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:17:10 +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Hi, > > > > /bin/bash, /bin/sh, bzip2, cpio, diffutils, gcc, gcc-c++, gzip, make, > > > patch, perl, python, redhat-rpm-config, rpm-build, rpm-python, sed, > > > tar, unzip > > > > > Better let's discuss whether above set should be extended. E.g. with > > > 'gettext' and 'desktop-file-utils', as they are needed by many src.rpms. > > > > + patchutils? Do you know of any src.rpm which buildrequires this? > zip? Same here. There are a few src.rpms which need 'unzip' for uncompressing source archives. But if any needs zip, that would be rare enough to let the packager "Buildrequires: zip". > automake* ? autoconf* ? Without the '*' I would agree. > readline &/ -devel? readline-devel is not needed often enough either. Even in Core, 'rpm --redhatrequires libreadline.so.4' doesn't print many packages. > byacc? > bison? Either one at most, so it would be well-defined whether a program uses 'bison -y' or yacc. > pkgconfig? Should be moved up higher to the root of a dependency chain. That means, foo-devel should "Require: pkgconfig" already when it places header files and libraries in custom directories and provides pkgconfig template files. > m4? Should be implicit with aclocal, automake and friends. > binutils? Dependency of gcc. > symlinks? Much more and end-user tool -- and if used at all in src.rpms, a suitable candidate for explicit buildrequires. > flex? Yes. > Can't think of any more > > right now :) . > > + libtool of course! Maybe. (It requires libtool-libs and hence provides GNU ltdl.)
