On Thursday 30 August 2007, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 06:39:00PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > On Thursday 30 August 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > If a Makefile uses it to install info files, it must be a BR. Else it > > > might happen that a missing install-info results in missing info > > > files. > > > > The same thing can be said of just about every feature that is optional > > in upstream Makefile/configure etc. > > No, it is different. In fedora info manuals are always welcome, > and texinfo is widespread. Ok, how is it different from something else that is optional per upstream build setup, but considered always welcome in Fedora and widespread? X and GNOME and Qt and KDE etc support is practically always welcome, so would you like all libX*-devel, *gnome*-devel, qt*-devel and kde*-devel added to the "minimal" build roots because some packages might not get those features built in if the packager doesn't add the BR's? (BTW, somewhat offtopic: I'm not saying they shouldn't always be packaged, but info manuals are not really welcome in my setups, let alone texinfo. I hate the "info" browser enough so I practically never use them, so all they do to me is consume a bit of disk space and bandwidth on updates and cause package scriptlet breakage every now and then.) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
