mach needs "redundant" BuildRequires

[Stefan van der Eijk]

Michael Schwendt wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 21:22:36 +0100, Stefan van der Eijk wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Due to the fact that -devel packages have no *automatic* dependencies 
>>added to them, there is no significant dependency structure in them. 
>>This makes getting the right BuildRequires for the packages nearly 
>>impossible. This issue and the solution Mandrake chose to implement are 
>>documented here:
>>    http://qa.mandrakesoft.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/RpmDevelDependencies
>>    
>>
>
>Fetching dependencies from pkgconfig templates is missing on that
>page. Pkgconfig has an own dependency chain. When a -devel package gets
>installed and contains support for pkgconfig,
>
>  pkg-config --list-all
>
>should not fail due to a broken chain of dependencies. The package should
>require every [-devel] package needed to complete the dependencies listed
>in the pkgconfig file.
>

I agree with you. But don't you agree that the functionality that the 
devel() depedencies provides is already a lot better than letting the 
packager decide what the dependencies will be (by specifying them in the 
.spec file). Of course a packager can still specify them if he wants to.

Perhaps we can explore the possibilities that a pkg-config related 
dependency scheme can bring, perhaps complementing the devel() 
dependencies. The trick will be to find a way to find the pkgconfig 
capabilites a package Requires *and* what pkgconfig capabilites a 
package Provides.

regards,

Stefan van der Eijk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3403 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20040310/38711c78/attachment.bin>