Inflation of explicit build requirements

[Warren Togami]

Shahms King wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-06-04 at 13:03, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> 
>>Michael Schwendt (fedora at wir-sind-cool.org) said: 
>>
>>>Better let's discuss whether above set should be extended. E.g. with
>>>'gettext' and 'desktop-file-utils', as they are needed by many src.rpms.
>>
>>Yes and maybe, if you're trolling for opinions.
>>
>>Bill
> 
> 
> As stands now gcc-g++ needs to be specified in BuildRequires if you're
> using mach as there is nothing else in "C++ build" toolchain that
> requires it.  If you leave it out, mach (correctly) removes the gcc-c++
> package before attempting to build it.  Some of the others are
> superfluous, but that one is not.

No.  This is only due to the default configuration of mach not matching 
Fedora packaging policies.

http://www.fedora.us/wiki/HOWTOFindMissingBuildRequires
fedora-rpmdevtools when added to your mach buildroot guarantees that the 
minimum package set is included.  The following packages are totally 
unnecessary in BuildRequires:

rpm-build
redhat-rpm-config
gcc
gcc-c++
make
sed
tar
cpio
patch
diffutils
gzip
bzip2
unzip
perl
(implicitly gawk, python, and several others)


This being said, some larger BuildRequires like "perl" or "python" are 
added by many packagers anyway for emotional reasons.  I am unwilling to 
fight this battle so this has been allowed.  Generally we only bitch 
about stupid BuildRequires like gcc*, make, etc.

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com