https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 --- Comment #60 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #59) > > No amount of futureproofing here is going to avoid having to continue to maintain the spec file. > > Fair. I don't want to argue about this, I just assumed the dependency was > removed in error. Sorry, I'm not trying to argue. Was not removed in error, just my standard practice of keeping BuildRequires lists short. Regarding the hypothetical you described... I would actually rather see the builds fail that did not explicitly list python3-setuptools. For several reasons. First, it keeps package maintainers aware of overall dependency changes (i.e., people building Python packages should probably be generally aware of the Python packaging practices in effect). Second, it keeps the project aware of what is actually still in use by users. A bunch of build failures may cause some things to show up as just things we can safely remove. Third, it presents package maintainers or other contributors with opportunities to go and clean things up in spec files from time to time as we continually revise and refine recommendations. -- 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
