Patches for shared configurations items and specifying additional dependencies

[seth vidal]

On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 23:54 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 22:48 -0500, Michael E Brown wrote:
> > I'm not the original author, but it looks good to me because you don't
> > have to burden _every_ srpm you build with extra packages in the
> > buildroot. It takes time to download and install these extra packages,
> > after all. 
> 
> True.  We're trying to solve a similar problem with RHEL packages, and
> we want the rhel init to be much larger for all packages we push
> through.  Trying to figure out which ones need which buildreqs and
> constantly adding to the list would not seem very fun, so we're probably
> just going to enable those build configs to have a much "fatter" init.
> 

why would we want to do that?

If a package has insufficient buildreqs then the package is broken.

We should not write code to work around broken packages that can be
fixed.

If there is a problem with the default set of things installed in a
minimal build chroot that's a different discussion but adding code in to
compensate for broken packages just seems like the cart leading the
horse.

-sv