On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 22:21 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:01:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > > > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:14:35 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> 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. > > >>> > > >> So help us come up with a better hard list of packages, so that the > > >> explicit list is more useful and we don't have to worry about implicit > > >> changes, instead of just whining about it on a mailing list. > > >> > > > > > > I'm not whining, but pointing out flaws which -- surprisingly -- meet > > > resistance. > > > > > > With the full list deleted, coreutils, bash and many other fundamental > > > packages are not guaranteed to be available in the default buildroot > > > anymore. It is beyond my comprehension that somebody claims everything > > > would be fine. > > > > > There must be a miscommunication here. Bash is on the list that will > > always be there: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions > > Okay, that I get for not reloading the page due to temporary network > probs. :) But: > > Then substitute the examples with glibc, libstdc++, binutils, cpp, > file, grep, mktemp, util-linux, ... you get the idea. The key to get this usable would be to use a _list of applications and libraries_ and keep this _list constant_. Not a list of packages as it is being done now. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
