Please replace the BuildRequires: glibc-headers with BuildRequires: gcc. The new Fedora packaging guidelines require you define all the things you need in the buildroot to build [1]. Given that this is a C program it should BuildRequires: gcc, and that is sufficient to bring in all of the required core C libraries and headers to compile C code. The reason I'm asking is because glibc-headers may or may not be removed in the future and it isn't sufficient to guarantee the package builds. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2
OK, will do.
Ummm ... unrelated question. If there is no "BuildRequires: glibc-headers" in a spec file, as historically the build root is expected to have the common packages needed for building C programs, then do all those packages now need to add a "BuildRequires: gcc" And why would something like this change?
(In reply to Ian Kent from comment #2) > Ummm ... unrelated question. > > If there is no "BuildRequires: glibc-headers" in a spec file, > as historically the build root is expected to have the common > packages needed for building C programs, then do all those > packages now need to add a "BuildRequires: gcc" Yes. > And why would something like this change? https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-May/210766.html The BuildRequires section of the guidelines has been revised; the exceptions list is gone. The release engineering folks are free to define the buildroot and rpm is free to change its dependency list. * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2 * https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3AGuidelines&diff=413629&oldid=409506 * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497
(In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #3) > (In reply to Ian Kent from comment #2) > > Ummm ... unrelated question. > > > > If there is no "BuildRequires: glibc-headers" in a spec file, > > as historically the build root is expected to have the common > > packages needed for building C programs, then do all those > > packages now need to add a "BuildRequires: gcc" > > Yes. OK, I'll check and update the other two packages I have. > > > And why would something like this change? > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-May/210766.html > > The BuildRequires section of the guidelines has been revised; the > exceptions list is gone. The release engineering folks are free to > define the buildroot and rpm is free to change its dependency list. > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2 > * > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index. > php?title=Packaging%3AGuidelines&diff=413629&oldid=409506 > * https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 So be it then, although that doesn't answer the question. I guess it's easy enough to understand why we want to do it though, with so many different build requirements and build root size affecting speed of builds etc. I just hope that we don't get a bunch of fails for packages that historically haven't build required things that were once taken as included. Ha, how do you work out the list of build requires for things like the auto tools, configure for example .... Requiring gcc is as good a place to start as any I guess. Ian
(In reply to Ian Kent from comment #4) > So be it then, although that doesn't answer the question. > > I guess it's easy enough to understand why we want to do it > though, with so many different build requirements and build > root size affecting speed of builds etc. Exactly. Not to mention CI efforts to bootstrap the distribution benefit from smaller dep chains and less things in chroots during builds. > I just hope that we don't get a bunch of fails for packages > that historically haven't build required things that were > once taken as included. It may result in that. > Ha, how do you work out the list of build requires for things > like the auto tools, configure for example .... We are working this out, and for example I filed an FPC about C and C++ development. https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/540 > Requiring gcc is as good a place to start as any I guess. Yes. c.