[CentOS-devel] progress?

[Jeff Johnson]

On Feb 22, 2011, at 8:56 PM, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:

> 
> Just take the missing build dependencies from Fedora 12/13. Red Hat has probably done the same.
> 
> What are you waiting for @ CentOS team??? Until Red Hat released the missing build dependencies?
> 

Please note that I did _NOT_ intend to re-start flames or CentOS bashing.

There is however a logical inconsistency between
	By policy, CentOS changes nothing (but removes trademarks to be legal)
and
	1.  Make the distro self hosting
	2.  Get rid of hidden build requirements

How does one detect "hidden" if every package is "de facto" and unchangeable by policy?

(aside)
And there's even reasons to not change dependencies, because that has some
(modest imho) risk of changing depslover (sic) behavior.

But if you CAN detect "hidden" or "missing" (and I'm quite sure Johnny can),
then adding a dependency is likely best for everyone involved, policy be damned.

Why re-distribute SRPM's with "hidden" (or missing) dependencies? That
kinda misses the point of dependencies in package metadata.


hth

73 de Jeff





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4645 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110222/392ecf74/attachment.p7s>