On 28 February 2018 at 05:28, Rafal Luzynski wrote: > 28.02.2018 09:33 Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> >> Le mercredi 28 février 2018 à 00:11 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit : >> > >> > Shouldn't we consider having -devel packages Require gcc or gcc-c++? >> > What good is a header package without a compiler anyway? >> > This would also (indirectly) pull in the compiler and fix most of >> > these failed builds. >> > >> >> gcc is not the only compiler that reads header files > > Also, do the header files actually *require* gcc to be present? > I know it makes sense to have both installed but there are potential > use cases where a user may need only the devel packages but not gcc: > > - abrt may need devel packages to generate readable stack traces, > - a user may use a different compiler than gcc (e.g., compat-gcc-34). Hi, All of these use cases can be handled by some virtual provides. My suggestion didn't intend to be specific to gcc. I guess I should have said something like Requires: <some-virtual-provides>. Best, Orcan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
