Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:43:19 -0800 > Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:10:48AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> [ whinging about python-psycopg2 ] >> Without python3 installed, macros in the spec file can't be expanded >> correctly (because their definitions depend on python3). The spec >> file is BuildRequireing python3 so it shouldn't be expected that you >> can operate on the spec file without python3 installed. > I'd prefer to see specs a bit more robust so that for instance you > could run "spectool" on them to download upstream sources and then do a > mockbuild, which wouldn't require python3 or whatever to be installed > on the build host. Precisely. There are *lots* of situations where we expect to be able to parse specfiles without necessarily having all their buildreqs installed (for the most obvious case: to find out what BRs are needed). I think one of the goals of this guideline should be to prevent creep in the set of packages that have to be present before tools like fedpkg will operate on a specfile without complaint. regards, tom lane -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
