util-linux missing from build root

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:54:39 +0200
Michael Schwendt <mschwendt.tmp0701.nospam at arcor.de> wrote:

> Seeing the suggestion that packagers should BR util-linux-ng triggered
> my reaction. I feel that if more BR like that are needed "now", we
> will see more path-based BR, too, and BR for fundamental tools like
> cpp, gcc, gcc-c++, rpm-build, /bin/sh, ...

Did you miss the last part of my mail where I gave an opportunity and a
place to bring suggestions to growing the base set of packages we
target?  Depchains change and relying upon them to always equate out to
the same set of packages is risky at best.  We list exactly what we ask
to install, anything beyond that should be listed in packages as BRs.
If we want to extend what we ask for, that's a FESCo topic, but I'm
very open to discussion.

What I don't want is reactionary "Oh this dep changed and $foo is no
longer being dragged into the buildroot for me, better update the
static list of what we ask for!"

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20070829/5a0b5212/attachment.sig>