On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:54:39 +0200 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt.tmp0701.nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Seeing the suggestion that packagers should BR util-linux-ng triggered > my reaction. I feel that if more BR like that are needed "now", we > will see more path-based BR, too, and BR for fundamental tools like > cpp, gcc, gcc-c++, rpm-build, /bin/sh, ... Did you miss the last part of my mail where I gave an opportunity and a place to bring suggestions to growing the base set of packages we target? Depchains change and relying upon them to always equate out to the same set of packages is risky at best. We list exactly what we ask to install, anything beyond that should be listed in packages as BRs. If we want to extend what we ask for, that's a FESCo topic, but I'm very open to discussion. What I don't want is reactionary "Oh this dep changed and $foo is no longer being dragged into the buildroot for me, better update the static list of what we ask for!" -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
