On Friday, 04 December 2020 at 17:20, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:55 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > For what's it worth I think that packages that only use make via cmake should > > not have an explcit dependency on make. Packages that use make directly should > > have an explicit dependency on make (even if they already BR cmake). > > Does that mean that if the requires: make that is currently > in the cmake package that was added due to rhbz#1862014 > is removed (as has been proposed since ninja is a valid > alternative) that you are fine with packagers having to go > fix their packages? Or would you expect another pass > across all packages to add a BR: make to be done? If > the later, it makes sense to me to do it once (when > someone is willing to do the work) to prepare for any > cmake cleanup(s). Wouldn't this work for cmake? Requires: (make or ninja) Suggests: make Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
