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. Err... looking at what PackageReviewGuidelines actually says: 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. Apply common sense. The only packages in the exceptions section are: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl rpm-build redhat-rpm-config sed tar unzip Note the absense of bison or flex in that list. Thus, the Guidelines state that you should have BR: bison/flex if you need it to build. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
