We have a "Broken Packages" forum, where these are getting reported.
Perhaps, the way to think of this is, yes, technically you may find a number of "Broken Packages" (primarily, I suspect, and has been previously noted, due to bad spec files). Odds are good, I'm guessing, however that the dependencies not specc'ed are in most default installations, anyway, so they never provide an issue for most people. Otherwise, we would see more of them listed on the forum.
They may be an issue with "mini" ISOs, or installs that have been deliberately pared down. These are more unique use cases, and I think should be dealt with as they appear.
Why do I feel this way?
Because, I would be concerned that listing every "broken" package that needs to be redone may take away developer time...especially is they are seen as "easy" or "quick" fixes...amplified over an inordinate number of packages could take away from actual upgrades and/or new packages. Hence, I think as they occur in real-world situations (even if it's just one person), get reported and subsequently fixed; that is a better use of our limited resources.