Re: [Base] Proposal for buildrequires cleanup janitorial initiative

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 06:31:56PM -0500, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 22:12:09 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > TBH I don't think that's necessarily a bug.  As long as B-devel
> > Requires C-devel, and if A isn't directly including headers from
> > C-devel, it seems fine for A not to BuildRequire C-devel.
> 
> I was getting at C-devel being a BR is a bug, so we agree here, but it
> looks like a-br just lists things without a rationale. I don't know how
> fancy you could get, but maybe tracking open/close recursively to see
> what is included where would work?

Patches welcome.  It's only 905 lines of code.

In the original case in this thread, we're interested in the case
where a BR is declared in the spec file but auto-buildrequires doesn't
show that BR.  This would be evidence that the BR is not needed and
should be deleted, or at least carefully examined.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux