On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:42:29 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Fri, 2006-03-17 at 17:36 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote: > > bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx [really paul@xxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > > > > > I would suggest the following: > > > > > > Instead of: > > > - MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in the > > > exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. > > > - MUST: All other Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. > > > > > > I'd have: > > > - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any > > > that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of > > > those as BuildRequires is optional. > > > > I'd wholeheartedly agree with this (I've been looking at some packages > > that I'm considering submitting and finding the removal of BR's just > > because they happen to be in the current list of "standard" ones a bit > > hard to swallow, especially when I might ideally like to use those in > > other environments where the encoding of some BR's that are in the > > Fedora "standard" list would be helpful) > > My +1 to the "I'd have" wording above. Others, spot? If this means that we will see packages with BR gcc-c++ rpm-build libstdc++-devel again, I cannot become fond of this proposal. ;) -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
