On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:08:40 +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:55:12PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:10:57 +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote: > > > > > I also considered util-linux, when jnovy mentioned that a package > > > needs "kill" to build properly. But I came to a conclusion that > > > "kill", "mount", nor any other command from util-linux doesn't have > > > to be in the minimal buildroot. > > > > arch, flock, getopt, rename are nice to have by default. > > well, might be nice, but I'm afraid we need to be more exact. > > Could you please find out or estimate, for each of the utils you > mentioned: > - how many upstream tarballs do not build without it? > - if they do not build, is it a transparent error, or > is it a hard-to-debug problem (builds but does not work in > certain special cases, for eample)? > - how many spec files call the utility? > > If the number of packages affected is small, and if the broken > packages are easy to discover and fix, we can leave util-linux out. Hyperbole. If such an enormous effort is needed to justify adding a core package, it is certainly not worth it. It would require burning cycles on thousands of tarballs, builds and checker-scripts to see whether a tarball disables features or self-tests when a tool is missing. The "initscripts" package used to require "util-linux". For a package that is available on the majority of Fedora/RHEL installations, I don't see any reason to make it a special optional build requirement. I'd rather add a generated set of buildroot packages to spec files and save the time. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
