On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:21 PM Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:55 PM Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > For what's it worth I think that packages that only use make via cmake > should > > not have an explcit dependency on make. Packages that use make directly > should > > have an explicit dependency on make (even if they already BR cmake). > > Does that mean that if the requires: make that is currently > in the cmake package that was added due to rhbz#1862014 > is removed (as has been proposed since ninja is a valid > alternative) that you are fine with packagers having to go > fix their packages? Or would you expect another pass > across all packages to add a BR: make to be done? If > the later, it makes sense to me to do it once (when > someone is willing to do the work) to prepare for any > cmake cleanup(s). > I think the CMake package should always provide at least one build system as a dependency, otherwise someone could install cmake and not be able to fully use it. This is a case where we can be "opinionated" in the CMake package and set a default build system for cmake in the package since it is trivial for the user to change the generator at runtime with the -G option. Then any consumers of the %cmake_* macros should rely on the choice of the CMake package for the system unless they want to override it themselves. -Ian
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
