#46 Is xz missing in list of implicit BuildRequires in Packaging Guidelines?
Closed: Fixed None Opened 8 years ago by ppisar.

[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2] does not mention `xz' package despite it does bzip2 or gzip. Also xz is pulled by rpm-build.

I'd like to ask whether spec file needs to BuildRequire xz explicitly if it's required by build process.

Otherwise it would be good to add it to the Packaging Guidelines BuildRequires Exception list.

See [http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/144266] for discussion in fedora-devel mailing list.


-1

Rationale:

AFAIU, Petr is talking about rpmbuild's ability to uncompress xz-compressed tarballs.

This is a feature provided by rpm (rpmbuild) and has no direct connection to the package "xz".

Yeas, I spotted the question in light of xz-compressed source archive. However we can discuss the issue in more general. Do we want to add xz to the exception list?

In the past we decided to just document what was explicitly listed in the buildsys-build comps group and let packagers determine the dependencies from that. gzip and bzip2 are explicitly in that list even though they are also deps of rpm-build. If you feel that xz should get the same treatment (I can see the rationale for that) then please first have rel-eng (not sure if you should ask rel-eng directly or if you need to ask fesco to approve and ask rel-eng) add it to the group and then ping us to make sure we update our list in the wiki.

dgilmore tells me that any change should go through fesco to authorize it and then a rel-eng ticket to implement it. The list would be changed in two places -- One in koji (which koji uses to write out its own copy of comps) and two in the comps file (which are used by mock).

Replying to [comment:4 toshio]:

In the past we decided to just document what was explicitly listed in the buildsys-build comps group and let packagers determine the dependencies from that. gzip and bzip2 are explicitly in that list even though they are also deps of rpm-build.

To me, these are historic defects, which should be removed, because having a packaging inside of buildsys-build means "people can be sure the tools/libs a package provides are safe to be explicitly used" - This is an entirely different use case as rpm's feature of being able to uncompress certain compressed sources (c.f. zip, lzma, ...).

Replying to [comment:6 ppisar]:

I filled [https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/528 FESCo ticket #528].
Fixed by FESCo (in git and koji comps group) now.

Who should I poke to update the [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 Exception List in Packaging Guide Lines]?

Added xz to the Exception List.

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata