util-linux missing from build root

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:01:28 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:

> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:14:35 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> >   
> >>> Conclusively, if the expanded "FullExceptionList" cannot be relied
> >>> on anymore, the minimal list is useless. Packages like sed, tar, gawk
> >>> suddenly cannot be expected anymore to be available in the buildroot.
> >>> This sucks.
> >>>       
> >> So help us come up with a better hard list of packages, so that the
> >> explicit list is more useful and we don't have to worry about implicit
> >> changes, instead of just whining about it on a mailing list.
> >>     
> >
> > I'm not whining, but pointing out flaws which -- surprisingly -- meet
> > resistance.
> >
> > With the full list deleted, coreutils, bash and many other fundamental
> > packages are not guaranteed to be available in the default buildroot
> > anymore. It is beyond my comprehension that somebody claims everything
> > would be fine.
> >   
> There must be a miscommunication here.  Bash is on the list that will 
> always be there:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions

Okay, that I get for not reloading the page due to temporary network
probs. :)  But:

Then substitute the examples with glibc, libstdc++, binutils, cpp,
file, grep, mktemp, util-linux, ... you get the idea.
 
> As far as the 'full list deletee' it never should have been created in 
> the first place as it created an incorrect expectation of what would be 
> there.

Without the full list, how do you check the dep-chain for whether a BR
is installed implicitly? e.g. whether binutils or cpp are available?
They are pulled in by gcc, but when they are not listed anywhere, how
do you check whether they must be put into explicit BR? Without the
expanded [full] list one would need to add lots of BR to almost every
package, which is something the minimal list tries to avoid.