On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 10:21:29PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Then substitute the examples with glibc, libstdc++, binutils, cpp, > file, grep, mktemp, util-linux, ... you get the idea. > > > As far as the 'full list deletee' it never should have been created in > > the first place as it created an incorrect expectation of what would be > > there. > > Without the full list, how do you check the dep-chain for whether a BR > is installed implicitly? e.g. whether binutils or cpp are available? > They are pulled in by gcc, but when they are not listed anywhere, how > do you check whether they must be put into explicit BR? Without the > expanded [full] list one would need to add lots of BR to almost every > package, which is something the minimal list tries to avoid. In my opinion adding: cpp binutils file findutils gawk glibc-devel grep libstdc++-devel mktemp util-linux which to the minimal list would be enough to have everything needed. The libs associated with the devel packages would be implicit. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
