On Fri, 2004-06-04 at 20:53, Michael Schwendt wrote: > The appearance of explicit build requirements like 'gcc-c++', 'cpp' (!), > 'perl' or even 'sed' in a couple of src.rpms indicates that there are > different opinions on what packages are considered as belonging into a > fundamental build environment. > With regard to 'cpp', the C preprocessor, it is required by 'gcc' already. True, but ... this is technically questionable. There actually are 3 different cpp's: /lib/cpp /usr/bin/cpp and gcc's internal cpp /usr/lib/gcc-lib/<target>/<gcc-version>/cc1 Normal packages will use /usr/bin/cpp or /usr/bin/gcc -P, which both are part of the GCC but won't use /lib/cpp, which is a historic artifact and is not part of the GCC. However, nowadays, many packages still rely on /lib/cpp to be present. Therefore these packages actually would need a "BuildRequires: /lib/cpp" > Please, let's avoid inflation of explicit build requirements in spec > files. > > End-users either have the 'development-tools' (as defined in comps.xml) > installed or not. If not, their src.rpm rebuild attempts would fail anyway > when configure scripts check for GCC. So don't aim at complete build > requirements to please end-users. > > 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. Ralf
