util-linux missing from build root

[Mike McGrath]

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:58:25 -0400, Jesse Keating 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?
>>     
>
> No, I saw it, but the bureaucracy (and suggested discussion) is beyond
> my time. This is the 2nd time in one week that a tool is missing in
> the buildroots, and it hasn't gone unnoticed by FESCo. The original
> definition of the minimal buildroot is void.
>
>   

AFAIK this hasn't changed at all:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions

I'm sorry that what you assumed would be there isn't, but what we say 
will be there (as listed in the Packaging Guidelines) is as it always 
was.  The implicit list has been removed but the explicit list hasn't 
changed and without FESCo approval, won't.

    -Mike