On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I share this sentiment.
Additionally, I strongly prefer naming BuildRequires explicitly. It's easier for contributors to understand what is going on, who can read a spec file, but aren't familiar with the specific conventions of the distro. I'm not a fan of "magic" dependencies.
On 01/12/2015 02:08 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dear Fedora developers,
>
> I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
> minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
> dependencies, etc.
I strongly support this idea.
In the past it probaby made sense to have GCC and friends in minimal
buildroot, but nowdays we have packages written in dozen of different
programming languages, which don't use GCC for compilation. It makes
perfect sense to drop C-related build tools from Koji @bulid group.
Additionally, I strongly prefer naming BuildRequires explicitly. It's easier for contributors to understand what is going on, who can read a spec file, but aren't familiar with the specific conventions of the distro. I'm not a fan of "magic" dependencies.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
