On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 09:42 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:04:52 -0400 > seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This doesn't sound terrible to me. If we did provide a list of library > > requirements and application requirements that we define as minimal it > > would be easy to pass that list to yum to resolve and install. > > > > something to think about, anyway. > > Can it be expressed as a comps group though? Does yum comps module > handle that? It can't atm, no. That could change, potentially. > Also keep in mind that part of having the minimal buildroot was so that > when people rebuild packages on their own, they didn't have to hunt > down why their package didn't build right due to silent missing > BuildRequires. That means we start with very little assumptions and > use the BuildRequires to build up exactly what we want around when this > package is built. I understand - I was just thinking that a base definition of libraries + applications that we need for a minimal chroot has the virtue of surviving independent of package renaming. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
