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&gt; 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.