util-linux missing from build root

[Michael Schwendt]

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.

> 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!"

Then why the silent modifications to the buildroot list?
Follow from

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

to

  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FullExceptionList

and notice

  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FullExceptionList?action=diff&rev2=14&rev1=13

The Exceptions list is and the explanations at the top of the
FullExceptionList page are void now, too.