Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 03:20:53PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
Whilst you're here, have you any view on the subject of allowing
buildreqs listed in the "Exceptions" section of the packaging guidelines
being "optional" rather than "must not"?
I am for a change, but having them optional may be a bit too permissive.
In my opinion the right thing should better be something along 'discouraged'
but non blocking. It would be messy to have all those unneeded buildrequires
creep in spec files.
I could live with that. I'd hate to see us having specs like those for
SuSE, which seem to list *every* buildreq and *all* of their deps,
sometimes amounting to 50+ buildreqs. What a nightmare to maintain if
package names changed.
What I'm trying to avoid is things like a buildreq of perl for a perl
module package being a blocker.
Paul.
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
