On 12 June 2015 at 21:32, Dennis Gilmore <dennis@ausil.us> wrote:
On Friday, June 12, 2015 02:21:14 PM Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 06/12/2015 12:11 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 11, 2015 08:36:38 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> On 05/21/2015 10:11 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>> The BuildRequires section of the guidelines has been revised; the
> >>> exceptions list is gone.  The release engineering folks are free to
> >>> define the buildroot and rpm is free to change its dependency list.
> >>>
> >>>  * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2
> >>>  *
> >>>  https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3AGuidelines&diff
> >>>  =
> >>>  413629&oldid=409506 * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497
> >>
> >> Can we get a build-essential package instead that requires everything
> >> that is needed to get a working C and C++ compiler, and run most
> >> autoconf/automake/libtool-generated scripts (but not the autotools
> >> themselves)?
> >
> > Can you please help me to understand the problem you are trying to solve?
> > what is different to "dnf install @buildsys-build" other than a package
> > vs a comps group
> The recent policy changes mean that developers have to take action to fix
> broken spec files. Comments like those above are essentially a request,
> and the request from our developers is going to be:
> "Now that the buildroot can contain almost nothing, what do I need to
> require in order to build C or C++ applications?"
> "Do I have to figure out every possible command that autoconf might call
> and include it in my BuildRequires or is there some magic meta prodives
> I can use?"
> To answer this question for C and C++ development I have filed this FPC:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/540
> And while the pedantic answer is "BuildRequire and Require on whatever
> you need", that is in my opinion insufficient guidance for Fedora packagers.

Okay thanks, with my releng hat on I had no idea this was coming and would
have suggested to the FPC to not change anything, at the least giving releng a
heads up saying that they were going to make us the gatekeepers would have
been appreciated. There is certainly no immediate plan to change anything from
status quo.
Woah, nothing has changed. We just got out of the business of unnecessarily storing this list of packages twice. The "build" package group is always going to be the canonical reference because no-one was maintaining the list the wiki.