On Tue 13 Jan 2015 01:35:26 AM CET Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I actually think that cmake should be added to the minimal build root,
> instead of removing stuff. Almost all the packages I work on BuildRequire
> cmake (which also implies that they need make to build, and gcc-c++ is the
> typical implementation language).
Yes good idea. I worked on Java packages. Let's put Maven in minimal
buildroot. I am sure everyone will enjoy it.
And, you know, why not, exactly? It’s not like the minimal buildroot is a cloud image
where every megabyte is multiplied by hundreds of thousands of users and costs money.
Rather, the inevitable series of dozens of (yum install $library-devel) every developer
does after installing a new OS is much more of a hassle than a few hundred megabytes of
space used by default.
Yes, let’s agree (hah!) on good, stable, well-designed programming languages and
libraries, and then install them by default in both the Workstation default install and
the default build root.¹
Seriously though what's a problem with listing your package's
real build
requires?
Life is too short to spend time micromanaging things that don’t actually matter for
improving utility of the resulting applications to users. Micromanaging the dependencies
is not inherent to solving any application use case; it is purely accidental complexity /
pointless hassle.
Lidem myšlení—strojům dřinu!²
(Incidentally, this would be much less of a problem if we had a way to add all the needed
BuildRequires: automatically, and actually did that. But the mere presence of these
BuildRequires: in spec files would still be accidental complexity we are introducing into
packaging—or alternatively, if we had a tool to detect this dependency then we wouldn’t
need to explicitly list the dependency in the spec file.)
Mirek
¹ Now I am not saying that C/C++/make are that great that they would now warrant being
chosen for to the default set but they are so prevalent that if there is any default set
it has to include them.
² Let people think and machines toil.