BuildRequires - flex and bison

[Tom 'spot' Callaway]

On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 09:27 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 01:26 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 May 2006 17:01:10 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 11:13:18PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > > > Hiyas,
> > > > 
> > > > do I need to add flex and bison as BuildRequires in a spec-file?
> > > > 
> > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequires does not 
> > > > mention both as exceptions but the suggested configuration on 
> > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks includes both.
> > > 
> > > Both flex and bison are in the standard buildgroups, so they should
> > > not be listed as explicit BuildRequires in your spec file.
> > 
> > To be precise, they _need not_ be listed explicitly (see
> > PackageReviewGuidelines). But it makes sense to list them.
> Facts, I consider to be defects of PackageReviewGuidelines.

Err... looking at what PackageReviewGuidelines actually says:

MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

The only packages in the exceptions section are:

bash
bzip2
coreutils
cpio
diffutils
fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
gcc
gcc-c++
gzip
make
patch
perl
rpm-build
redhat-rpm-config
sed
tar
unzip

Note the absense of bison or flex in that list. Thus, the Guidelines state that you should have BR: bison/flex if you need it to build.

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!