https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295217 --- Comment #25 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Denis Fateyev from comment #19) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #18) > > > 3) The recent guidelines require to specify all build requirements for new > > > packages (in your case: make, coreutils, gcc-c++); > > > > This changed recently. https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/490 and > > https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 have the full history, but the > > relevant > > part is the following change to guidelines > > [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2]: > > > > "It is important that your package list all necessary build dependencies > > using the BuildRequires?: tag. You may assume that enough of an environment > > exists for RPM to function and execute basic shell scripts, but you should > > not assume any other packages are present as RPM dependencies and anything > > brought into the buildroot by the build system may change over time." > > > > fedora-review is wrong here, and one SHOULD have BuildRequires:gcc, > > though things work just fine without, and will do so for the forseeable > > future. The spec file is correct. > > The wording in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2 hasn't > changed since the proposed writeup https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 . > It's seen by current wording and the diff in the ticket above. Sorry, I misread you comment completely. You're correct, those BR should be added. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review