https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822971 --- Comment #68 from David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Nick Black from comment #65) > Regarding the BuildsRequires, I would personally look to the precedent of > cpp #includes and ld linking. There, if <stdio.h> #includes <math.h> I'm > still expected to #include <math.h> if I'm using a symbol on the API > boundary exported by <math.h>, and I'm still expected to link any library > where I'm using a symbol at the ABI boundary, even if I would get it > transitively. > > Thus my opinion is to go with the explicit dependency, if only because my > UNIX forefathers did. > > In that same vein, I wasn't going to make an issue of it in my first package > review. Eiher way is now your choice. Miro's points are entirely valid. I stand by my tendency to keep the BuildRequires list as small as possible because I think about SRPMs less as standalone source files and more part of a single Borg hive where the only thing we do is topological sorting. -- 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
