On 22 February 2018 at 10:47, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 09:53:25AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> I am trying to figure out the special cases here. Why are some >> packages more equal than others. >> >> In the end, I am just trying to figure out what the new "Fedora >> Project Packagers License" is. Something like: >> >> A packager MUST know every build requirement that their package uses >> to build itself. A packager MUST list each of these as a >> BuildRequires. A packager MUST not depend on dependencies to pull in >> those packages. > > "It is important that your package list all necessary build > dependencies using the BuildRequires: tag. You may assume that enough > of an environment exists for RPM to function, to build packages and > execute basic shell scripts, but you should not assume any other > packages are present as RPM dependencies and anything brought into the > buildroot by the build system may change over time." [1] > > This is not _too_ precise, but I think that's OK. It's pretty clear > that a compiler is not necessary "for RPM to function, to build packages > and execute basic shell scripts". > OK this is a problem on my part. I have taken sections which have MUST/WILL/SHOULD in them to be done and I have taken ones without that as general guidance. To me that section said it was ok to not list gcc-cc if you knew it had to be there gcc-c++ would have to pull it in. It is a should not a SHOULD and not a must or MUST. I will correct my reading of this from now on. > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Build-Time_Dependencies_.28BuildRequires.29 > > Zbyszek > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
