https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 --- Comment #57 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- > My default has been to always minimize the BuildRequires listings for easier maintenance. Since he needed python3-cffi he could get two for one there. It doesn't really matter to me whether it's listed explicitly or not, but I've always liked the shorter BuildRequires listings. I consider this approach error prone: in the future, cffi or Python might no longer need setuptools and the dependency will be removed, suddenly, this package will fail to build. Since this package uses setuptools directly (and not trough cffi), I think that listing the build dependency explicitly is the right thing to do. In fact, we want to get rid of the current "python3-devel requires python3-setuptools" thing, but many packages don't list setuptools explicitly, that makes it hard for us. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
