Re: Removal of dependencies on net-tools
On 26 September 2017 at 19:43, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 26.09.2017 um 20:39 schrieb James Hogarth:
>
>
> On 26 Sep 2017 6:37 pm, "Chris Adams" <linux(a)cmadams.net <mailto:
> linux(a)cmadams.net>> wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, James Hogarth <james.hogarth(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:james.hogarth@gmail.com>> said:
> > You're correct that this isn't covering BR situations but I
> didn't want the
> > scope of this to blow out to the less reasonable.
> >
> > First phase let's get the package off systems where it's not
> absolutely
> > required or requested by the user...
> >
> > Then BR can be cleaned up in the background without affecting
> user systems.
>
> Packages that BR net-tools (or its commands) may be expecting it to be
> installed without explicitly specifying an install dependency, and
> just
> happen to work because net-tools is pulled in by other deps. The BRs
> should be fixed as part of this change, or there may be unexpected
> breakage.
>
>
> That doesn't make sense.
>
why?
Ah ... you're implying package (1) has a dependency on net-tools then
package (2) has a dependency on (1) but uses the net-tools binaries without
declaring on the dependency?
Well that would be a technical breach of the packaging guidelines so that's
a good thing to catch - and why we are doing this in rawhide only :)
But that has nothing to do with BuildRequires though ... that's just an
implicit dependency due to improper declarations and a bit of an accident
on the Requires front...
There is only net-tools on a system if a requires/recommends pulls it in
> or a user installs it
>
and currently it is pulled because of other deps so nobody knows that the
Requires is missing - what did you not understand in "happen to work
because net-tools is pulled in by other deps" which are you about to remove?
The misunderstanding came from the BuildRequires discussion - which has
nothing to do with an implicit dependency via a downstream chain of deps
which is what you are discussing ...
But again that's why the directive from FESCo is Rawhide only for changes
to specs ... and if it catches missing Requires that's a good thing :)
If you're willing to lend a hand with testing things I'd love to have the
help :)
If you aren't willing to help ... well we don't let fear of hypotheticals
like that stop us trying to make the world a better place :)
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 3.9 KB)