Dne 01. 12. 20 v 19:35 Tom Stellard napsal(a):
On 12/1/20 8:33 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:Dne 01. 12. 20 v 13:56 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 01:20:33PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:Dne 01. 12. 20 v 2:37 Tom Stellard napsal(a):False positive because they use gcc which was crashing due to the (at the time) missing make dependency. Are these packages missing BuildRequires: gcc ?Do I understand correctly, that gcc requires make [0]? Therefore at this stage, it should be enough to have `BuildRequires: gcc` and hence such packages should not be on your list?Please don't rely on gcc requiring make. This is an internal implementation detail of the gcc package, and hopefully one day we'll be able to drop this dependency. If a package uses make directly, it should BR:make itself.I think this was never clear cut if such dependency should be specified or not. The dependencies, which are at some point added for whatever good reason might be left behind while they are not useful anymore. This problem on itself is much harder to solve then adding the missing dependencies should they be needed one day.So while I don't disagree with your point, I think the the `BR: make` should be automatically added only where needed right now to prevent FTBFS after make removal.Now that gcc requires make, if we took this approach there would be very few packages that need to be updated for this change request. If gcc did decide to drop the make dependency or make it weak, who would take on the work of updating the thousands of packages that use make? Right now, we have someone (me) who is willing an able to do the updates, and I think we should this is a good reason to update all the packages now.
As a Ruby maintainer, I generally care about all rubygems- packages and since there is more then a few on the list, I was considering also other options, such as adding `BR: make` as a dependency of ruby{,gems}-devel or possibly directly into rubygems package, because honestly it is not that obvious that some rubygem- packages depends on make, because this dependency is well hidden. This is one thing.
But there are others. If the decision is to move forward with the change, then there should be fixed not only the rubygem- packages in question, but there should be fixed also gem2rpm to add the dependency.
Please don't get me wrong, I don't object the change. I especially don't object to the "Remove make from BuildRoot". I just want to highlight that that the landscape slightly changed since the initial proposal, because gcc explicitly depends on make and there are different possible options for some of the packages. And there are necessary changes which are left out of the scope. Therefore it might be good to focus again on the original proposal, which was not to "Add make dependency to every package which requires make."
Vít
-TomVítZbyszekI am asking, because for example rubygem-bcrypt is on the list while requiring gcc [1]. This is just one package I have checked (but actually I have added make to the ruby package, later wondering if it was necessary), but I suspect that also other rubygem- packages are similar case. Could you please make sure if they should or should not be on your list?_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.orgFedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelinesList Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.orgFedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelinesList Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
OpenPGP_0x0CE09EE79917B87C.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
