FC-4 Extras buildsystem breakage details

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 2/22/06, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi> wrote:
> I don't think there's a need for such a special case.  Packages simply
> must not provide things they don't really intend to "export".

well yes... they shouldn't do that... but I'm asking how do we do a
better job of checking for that...especially when rpmbuild's
automagical provides calculator notices something and makes it a
provides when you did not explicitly ask it to be? If building binary
packages and checking its provides list isn't a hard review
requirement for pre-submission reviews... how else can we do a better
job of catching this sort of thing?

And how do we do a better job of making sure that if it happens it
doesn't bite us in the buildsystem itself?

-jef