On 12/13/2013 02:31 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:20:50 +0100,
Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* It might be interesting to have some script, which tries to audit
BR, e.g. it removes all BR first and then adds them back as they are
required. This could reveal some BR which are actually not needed
anymore, but are listed among BR from historic reasons.
The check for this needs to be careful. When some requirements are
missing a build can still succeed, but be missing intended features. So
you can't just test whether a build succeeds or fails to determine if a
build requirement is really needed.
Yep. I remember back when we did the s390x stuff for F12 that was one of
the things we looked at specifically: Hacking things together to get at
least building was a good start, but if you didn't install several other
packages the build would still succeed but with autoconf automatically
disabling several features.
Thats why i really like the way we've moved over the past 10 years or so
to explicitly only have a pretty small buildsys environment and almost
everything else needs to be explicitly required for building from the
respective packages.
Famous last words: Can't be that hard to write a script that compares 2
builds that they provide the have the same provides and requires and
filelists. :)
Thanks & regards, Phil
--
Philipp Knirsch | Tel.: +49-711-96437-470
Manager Core Services | Fax.: +49-711-96437-111
Red Hat GmbH | Email: Phil Knirsch <pknirsch@xxxxxxxxxx>
Wankelstrasse 5 | Web: http://www.redhat.com/
D-70563 Stuttgart, Germany
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
