FC-4 Extras buildsystem breakage details

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:27:04 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

> On 2/22/06, Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta> 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?

Examine binary packages ( rpm -qp --provides foo.i386.rpm ) and ask
yourself "Do you like what you see? Did you expect the package to provide
a Perl module?". It's something the packagers should do anyway before they
decide whether any explicit "Provides" are needed.

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

First let's wait how often it will happen again. ;)