On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:58:25 -0400, Jesse Keating 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? No, I saw it, but the bureaucracy (and suggested discussion) is beyond my time. This is the 2nd time in one week that a tool is missing in the buildroots, and it hasn't gone unnoticed by FESCo. The original definition of the minimal buildroot is void. > 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!" Then why the silent modifications to the buildroot list? Follow from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FullExceptionList and notice http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FullExceptionList?action=diff&rev2=14&rev1=13 The Exceptions list is and the explanations at the top of the FullExceptionList page are void now, too. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
