On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/11/13 14:22, Thomas Spura wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Dne 12.11.2013 13:42, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a):
On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 12:54, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi,
I see more often then I would like that some packages get pushed
into Fedora and immediately appears among broken
dependencies, since
they were pushed into Fedora sooner then their dependencies.
So I propose to add one additional bullet into reviewer
guidelines [1]:
"Package has to have satisfied all its dependencies prior it
is approved."
Hopefully somebody will notice next time during review ....
*Sigh* it's another case of something so obvious that nobody thought
it needed to be spelled out before, but apparently it's
necessary now,
so +1.
Regards,
Dominik
Better would be if it is technically impossible, but I have no idea
how to achieve that :/ Actually, the script which creates the
dist-git repo could check the .spec file and availability in Fedora
and deny to create repo without satisfied dependencies, but it seems
to be a bit overkill.
Hmm, is it usefull to have Requires, that are not installed on build
time? If a package has a Requires on something, and doesn't need it on
build time, build time is faster as the installation can be saved. But
other than that, it shouldn't hurt to just blindly install the requires
also on buildtime and in such cases it would fail.
Are there other reasons except saving some installation time for not
installing the requires on build time?
There can be cases where packages run-require each other but don't build-require each other (which would of course be circular build dependencies).
Yeah... Right... Never mind...
Thanks,
Thanks,
Tom
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
