On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:21:41 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > AFAIK this hasn't changed at all: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions > > I'm sorry that what you assumed would be there isn't, but what we say > will be there (as listed in the Packaging Guidelines) is as it always > was. The implicit list has been removed but the explicit list hasn't > changed and without FESCo approval, won't. Which only proves my original comment. ;) Tom Callaway's explanations in the guidelines: | These are the packages you can safely assume will be present in a | BuildRoot without being pulled in by a package's BuildRequires. That is NOT safe anymore. Conclusively, if the expanded "FullExceptionList" cannot be relied on anymore, the minimal list is useless. Packages like sed, tar, gawk suddenly cannot be expected anymore to be available in the buildroot. This sucks. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
