Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
Le mercredi 28 février 2018 à 21:11 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit : > On 28 February 2018 at 10:03, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le 2018-02-28 15:28, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit : > > > > > > On 28 February 2018 at 09:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > > > > These are all _very_ edge use-cases. > > > > > > Those are *not* edge-cases. > > We have a few thousand build failures. If you cannot find as many (or > at least in the same magnitude) such use case examples these will stay > as edge cases. > > Please start counting. Apart from being a totally unfriendly attitude (I have more packages that you, so I can piss on your builds) I *do* have more than 570 Go specs that would be negatively affected by pulling gcc in the buildroot for no good reason just to avoid fixing the specs that actually need this. And I'm just one packager. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
On 28 February 2018 at 10:03, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le 2018-02-28 15:28, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit : >> >> On 28 February 2018 at 09:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > >> These are all _very_ edge use-cases. > > > Those are *not* edge-cases. We have a few thousand build failures. If you cannot find as many (or at least in the same magnitude) such use case examples these will stay as edge cases. Please start counting. Best, Orcan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
Le 2018-02-28 16:03, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : Most system libraries are written in C/C++ so pretty much all the language toolchains we ship (except for toy languages not intended to produce complex apps) will read C/C++ header files from their compilers to use those system libraries, and will BuildRequires the corresponding C/C++ package to do so. the corresponding C/C++ -devel package that is Even forgetting about clang a C/C++ -devel package is *not* used solely to build C/C++ code with a C/C++ compiler. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
Le 2018-02-28 15:28, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit : On 28 February 2018 at 09:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: These are all _very_ edge use-cases. Those are *not* edge-cases. Most system libraries are written in C/C++ so pretty much all the language toolchains we ship (except for toy languages not intended to produce complex apps) will read C/C++ header files from their compilers to use those system libraries, and will BuildRequires the corresponding C/C++ package to do so. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Re: Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
On 02/28/2018 04:28 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On 28 February 2018 at 09:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: My point was *non-C-compilers* can read *C/C++* header files because they need to read the ABI definitions to use it from their non C/C++ code. That makes a C/C++ header file consumable by pretty much any kind of compiler, so it's *completely useless* to try to make C/C++ devel packages pull in a compiler, via virtual provides or not. Hello, These are all _very_ edge use-cases. The primary use is to build the software. Hence pulling in a compiler will not be quite harmful; it is certainly not *completely useless*. On the other hand it will clear up vast majority of the build failures. I was trying to come up with the least intrusive solution. The headers don't *require* any damn thing, except perhaps other headers (from other -devel packages). They are generally *used by* C/C++ compilers, but there are all sorts of other users (including humans just looking at it) too as has been pointed out. Point being, "used by" and "requires" are two very different kind of dependencies. - Panu - ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Re: Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
On 28 February 2018 at 09:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > My point was *non-C-compilers* can read *C/C++* header files because they > need to read the ABI definitions to use it from their non C/C++ code. > > That makes a C/C++ header file consumable by pretty much any kind of > compiler, so it's *completely useless* to try to make C/C++ devel packages > pull in a compiler, via virtual provides or not. Hello, These are all _very_ edge use-cases. The primary use is to build the software. Hence pulling in a compiler will not be quite harmful; it is certainly not *completely useless*. On the other hand it will clear up vast majority of the build failures. I was trying to come up with the least intrusive solution. Best, Orcan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Re: Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
My point was *non-C-compilers* can read *C/C++* header files because they need to read the ABI definitions to use it from their non C/C++ code. That makes a C/C++ header file consumable by pretty much any kind of compiler, so it's *completely useless* to try to make C/C++ devel packages pull in a compiler, via virtual provides or not. Only the packager knows the compiler he intends to use to consume the devel packages of other projects. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
