mock goals and non-goals

[Hans Ulrich Niedermann]

seth vidal <skvidal at linux.duke.edu> writes:

> Patches which I am ambivalent about:
> - the fake buildreqs/sneaky buildreqs patch for rebuilding items with
> BROKEN buildrequires:
>    - I hate the idea of enabling broken shit
>    - I realize that there are lots of broken things that people need to
> work around and I'm sympathetic to that, to some extent. Doesn't mean I
> can't hate it.

Would it help if I tried to sell you that feature as a "build
dependency problem debugging tool"?

These are the arguments:

 1. Allowing an easy way add fake buildreqs allows one to easily add,
    remove again and thus test build dependencies in a reproducible
    way. This helps greatly to determine the exact set of missing
    builddeps.

 2. The additional builddeps determined in step 1. are in a simple and
    convenient data format for conversion into a bug reports to the
    respective package maintainers.

Documenting the feature using this line of reasoning might also help
people get the right idea and do the right thing.

Uli