Dne 27. 02. 20 v 0:58 Robert-André Mauchin napsal(a):
On Thursday, 27 February 2020 00:35:34 CET José Abílio Matos wrote:
> I am asking this about
> Is the requirement that we should explicit state the compiler or is it
to have it implicitly.
> Case in point, R binary packages.
> Each package requires R-devel. Now R-devel requires R-core-devel that
> So the BuildRequires for gcc-c++ is there but implicitly.
> If the requirement is for the BuildRequires to be explicit then it should be
said that explicitly in the guidelines page. As an example in the
> "Packaging Q&A" section.
> What do you think? Regards,
> José Abílio
As a reviewer, I only require it for C/C++ only packages, not R, Perl or
Python for example.
Generally, all packages should list all their build dependencies. There
is no reason not to.
In the case of C/C++, it used to be automatically included in build
root. However, that was wasteful for all packages, which do not require
C/C++ compiler. But because the compiler was expected to be in build
root, people omitted it from the BR. Which in turn made the task of
removing the compiler from build root quite hard, because quite some
packages would be broken by this step.
This is the reason for the guideline.
In reality, it is not always easy or practical to list all the
dependencies. But you should expect, that one day your package might
become broken, because the `Require: gcc` will be removed from the
dependency chain for whatever reason.
Now that you understand the reason for this specific guideline is good
time to apply the "use your best judgement" guideline :)
packaging mailing list -- packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines