On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 09:27 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 01:26 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Tue, 16 May 2006 17:01:10 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 11:13:18PM +0200, Till Maas wrote: > > > > Hiyas, > > > > > > > > do I need to add flex and bison as BuildRequires in a spec-file? > > > > > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequires does not > > > > mention both as exceptions but the suggested configuration on > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks includes both. > > > > > > Both flex and bison are in the standard buildgroups, so they should > > > not be listed as explicit BuildRequires in your spec file. > > > > To be precise, they _need not_ be listed explicitly (see > > PackageReviewGuidelines). But it makes sense to list them. > Facts, I consider to be defects of PackageReviewGuidelines. > > IMO, the only correct approach is to make explicitly listing them as > BuildRequires mandatory, because having them in the defaults only adds > bloat to mock, while only very few packages really use flex/bison. +1 The new buildsys-build package, which replaces the use of comps groups in the forthcoming version of mock from cvs, still has dependencies on flex and bison and will hence pull them in to the default buildroot. http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-commits/2006-April/msg00850.html Any other packages in the list that shouldn't be? Paul. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
