On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 12:23 -0400, Brian Pepple wrote: > On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 18:15 +0200, Aurelien Bompard wrote: > > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > >> So no need to require it in the specfiles. > > > It's not listed in > > > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions > > > so it should be BuildRequired. > > > > How should we find out missing buildrequires if not with mock ? (yes, and > > fedora-rmdevelrpms). IMHO every package installed by default by mock should > > be and exception for BuildReqs (that's what buildreqs are for, btw). > > Agreed. mock is a useful tool for that, yes, but as mentioned on this list earlier, the list of exceptions has been documented and unchanged for a looooong time, and for some reasons that was not taken into account when the default mock config was set up, which people are working on to fix really soon now. My (somewhat educated) guess is that it's very likely that quite a few packages will be dropped from the default mock setup, and some may be added to the exceptions. If you want to be on the safe side, just keep using the current exceptions list as-is, I don't foresee anything being dropped from it in the near future (well, at least as long as rpm-build has a dependency on perl...) -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
