Jon,

Thanks for reporting this.  I am rebuilding a2ps now.

-Connie Sieh

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Jon Peatfield wrote:

> While working through the set of packages we will be likely to install
> with SL 3.0.4 I spotted that we had pulled in tetex-1.0.7 (etc), which
> we don't want (since we use a tetex-2.0.2 based tex but not installed
> as an rpm).
> 
> It appears that following the chain of dependencies that we pulled it
> in because of a2ps which (in SL 3.0.4 RC2 at least) has a dependency
> on tetex-afm.
> 
> Previous builds of a2ps on RH8/9 (and FC1 etc) don't have this
> dependency, and it isn't explicit in the a2ps SPEC file.  It seems
> that the dependency is (automatically) added if rpmbuild is run on a
> system which happens to have tetex-afm installed.
> 
> Should a2ps actually have this extra dependency?  Does it in RHEL?
> 
> Rebuilding a2ps on a system without tetex-afm installed produces an
> rpm which doesn't have the extra dependency.  This might mean that one
> should really only build packages on systems with the "minimum" set of
> packages installed (those specified as BuildRequires in the SPEC file)
> though I know from experience that this isn't in practise possible
> (since many basic dependencies are missed in there).
> 
> When SL rpms are (re-)built does it happen in a special environment?
> If so how is the set of available packages in the build environment
> handled?
> 
>  -- Jon
>