On 01/05/2015 05:03 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 2.1.2015 v 16:59 Jan Zeleny napsal(a):
> Dne Út 23. prosince 2014 09:57:31, Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>> Dne 22.12.2014 v 19:18 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>>>>>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius
<rc040203(a)freenet.de> writes:
>>> RC> If we'd want to change something about this, rpm would likely
have
>>> RC> to modified - I don't think this would be advisable.
>>>
>>> I was kind of hoping Panu or some other RPM dev would notice the thread
>>> and give a hint as to how painful it might be. I'm not entirely sure
>>> how to get their attention otherwise.
>> I'm adding jzeleny into CC. Hopefully he will delegate this question to
>> someone from RPM team, who could elaborate.
> Could you first be a bit more specific as to what exactly would you like rpm to
> do? I haven't seen any specific proposals in this thread. in the thread. As for
> minimizing the BRs, I believe the Base WG is the one you should talk to, as
> they have already done some work in that area.
>
> Thanks
> Jan
Unfortunately the most important idea was stripped from the previous
discussion and it was:
"It actually is the norm to have additional build-time-deps just to run
testsuites (aka. %check).".
So what I would like to see (and Ralf probably meant) is something like
"BuildRequires(check): foo" (there were times when RPM allowed this
syntax, although probably just by mistake). Or probably "CheckRequires:
foo" might be even better. In this case, if you run something like
"rpmbuild --disable-check -ba ....", it would skip the %check section
and hence you would not need the check requires.
The %check could be even automatically disabled during the bootstrap phase.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134397
- Panu -