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
> 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
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
In my opinion, it is a bad use of developer time to track what
exactly are called from ./configure, and how these programs match
sed/grep/coreutils. It would also give us a central place where we can
fix breakage due to missing packages in build roots because a
significant fraction of packages got a build-required package through an
can you describe the issues and breakages you are talking about, or point me
at some examples. the buildroot does not often break. but in the scenario
you are talking about fixing may be difficult without being able to build the
package that has the fix.
I am trying to understand what you see as broken and how this would fix it. as
opposed to how things are currently done.
right now we have the build group defined in koji and buildsys-build in comps.
the packages defined in the comps groups define the minimal buildroot, which
is what gets installed when you do "mock -r <config> --init"
get installed on top of it. then the build is done