On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 20:53 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
Recently there has been some fluctuation in the implicit list of
packages expected to be in the minimal build roots. Due to this we've
had some discussions on what to adjust to ease the pain and re-set
expectations going forward.
As such there is a proposal to add a few packages to the Explicit
list. Some were already being pulled in implicitly but we want to make
them explicit. Some had been missing lately and we'd like them back.
The current list is:
bzip2
unzip
fedora-release
redhat-rpm-config
perl
diffutils
make
cpio
gcc
coreutils
sed
which
rpm-build
gzip
patch
gcc-c++
tar
bash
(perl-devel has been short term added to help with some transitions
with the perl -> perl-devel split, however it is now going to be
removed)
The proposed new explicit list would look like:
bzip2
unzip
fedora-release
redhat-rpm-config
diffutils
make
cpio
gcc
coreutils
sed
which
rpm-build
gzip
patch
gcc-c++
tar
bash
util-linux-ng
gawk
info
grep
findutils
This would currently dep resolve out to 8 new packages, and 3M more
content in the buildroot.
For reference a really minimal install (@core, kernel) with rpm-build
added in, would need the following packages to have at least this
minimal buildroot:
bzip2
gcc-c++
make
redhat-rpm-config
unzip
which
binutils
cpp
gcc
glibc-devel
glibc-headers
kernel-headers
libgomp
libstdc++-devel
This would be accomplished by a simple 'yum groupinstall
buildsys-build'. It's still a few more things that have to be added
than I'm comfortable with, I'd much prefer that a micro install +
rpm-build gave you what was in the minimal buildroot so that you could
have confidence in the BuildRequires, but I'm willing to bend a bit.
Along with these changes would be some clearer text regarding what can
be assumed and what can't. Only the Explicit list would be given in
the wiki, and only things in the explicit list would be absolutely OK
to assume. Anything else should be regarded as "bonus" only and
subject to potential change. I have asked Seth Vidal to help create a
So we now
have to buildrequire even the packages from the third list
above? Such as binutils, glibc-devel, glibc-headers and kernel-headers?
That seems really weird and I'd suggest to add them to the explicit
list.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb