Hi Michael, > > > + patchutils? > > Do you know of any src.rpm which buildrequires this? ghostscript. But indeed just a single package. Can probably best remain a specific requirement. > > 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". I thought I noticed a package requiring zip while building some of the base packages for RHEL 3, but I can't find a(n implicit) reference to it in any spec file now... > > 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. Yes, it is a requirement of autoconf. > > binutils? > > Dependency of gcc. Yup. > > 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.) That leaves autoconf, automake, byacc/bison and libtool (maybe). What about the idea to make these (plus the packages you mentioned) an explicit requirement for rpm-build? Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research
