Bug 1298798

Summary:	dnf builddep systemd build dependencies different as what I expect because of macros
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Francois Rigault <rigault.francois+fed>
Component:	dnf-plugins-core	Assignee:	Packaging Maintenance Team <packaging-team-maint>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	23	CC:	jsilhan, mluscon, packaging-team-maint, pnemade, RadekHolyPublic, vmukhame
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-01-25 12:32:42 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Francois Rigault 2016-01-15 06:00:48 UTC

Description of problem:

as per documentation:
http://dnf-plugins-core.readthedocs.org/en/latest/builddep.html

  Build dependencies in a package (i.e. src.rpm) might be different than 
  you would expect because they were evaluated according macros set on 
  the package build host.

Steps to Reproduce:

On an x86_64 hardware and distro:

  dnf download systemd --source
  dnf builddep systemd
  ...
  rpmbuild -ba systemd.spec


Actual results:

gnu-efi gnu-efi-devel build dependencies are missing

Expected results:

all the build dependencies are installed.


Additional info:

systemd.spec contains

%ifarch %{ix86} x86_64
BuildRequires:  gnu-efi gnu-efi-devel
%endif

I am aware of the documentation which states that

> Build dependencies in a package (i.e. src.rpm) might be different than you would expect because they were evaluated according macros set on the package build host. (lame excuse ;)

However this is not completely satisfactory. If we want to automatize the packaging of our rpms, this will mean additional configuration to get a per-package list of additional dependencies. Additionally, I don't think we should expect everyone to go read the documentation for a tool as straightforward as "builddep" that just works most of the times. It makes the tool feel unreliable and degrades the user experience.

If this is a WONTFIX, could we please update the documentation to say so, or maybe point to another bugzilla record?

Comment 1 Honza Silhan 2016-01-25 12:32:42 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1210276 ***