Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote: > >> Hi Akemi, >> >> On 01/06/2011 03:40 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: >> >>> Here is a potential candidate (virt-top build bug): >>> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661783 >>> >>> It's one of the many bugzilla reports filed by Levente Farkas and one >>> of the few RH responded. Apparently they included a bogus dependency >>> in the spec. So, the remedy is either patch the spec or add the >>> required package in the build environment. >>> >> Comment #5 from Rich clears it up quite nicely from our ( the CentOS ) >> side of things, the upstream package was built with that dep, so we >> would need to as well. I havent looked at the build logs to see if there >> I interpret this statement to say, "if the upstream binary package is buggy, CentOS must provide the same bugs." Personally I was hoping this would not be the case. UpStream primarily responds to users that pay for support. As a result if the bug you identified is not also identified by a "pay for support customer" it may not even be considered. I thought CentOS was only dependent on the UpStream Sources, not on a recreation of their buggy build environment. Hubert >> is any buildtime or usage side implications. But it looks pretty clear >> for us, we need to build with that dep >> > > But what if the spec file is missing, say, BuildRequires ? Would you > add it to the CentOS spec ? Otherwise it won't build, of course. > Apparently there is a known case in RHEL-6. > > Akemi > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > > >