On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 11:08 -0500, Robin Norwood wrote: > Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Warren Togami wrote: > >> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >>> > >>> As this thing doesn't seem to be baked yet[1], and as I don't want to > >>> see FE-6 and FE-5 being locked out from updates, for now, I will ignore > >>> this issue on rawhide, i.e. you will likely see broken EVRs between > >>> rawhide and older FE, on my perl-modules, soon. > >> Why broken EVR's? > > > > Most perl module packages can use a common spec file across all > > branches, except this is now broken in devel since perl-devel is > > needed to build even noarch perl-based packages. So Ralf isn't > > updating perl modules in devel until this is resolved, with the result > > that updated packages in branches for older releases have higher EVRs > > than the equivalent packages in devel. I'm doing likewise for the > > moment. > > If we retroactively add a 'Provides: perl-devel' to versions of perl in > older distributions, will that help? It will solve the *.spec portability issue, but ... the core question still remains: Is this split "correct" and "sustainable" or simply broken? ATM, IMO, the outcome is still unclear. E.g. wrt to the MakeMaker issue, the "correct solution" would be to let a ExtUtils::MakeMaker spec "Requires: perl-devel", and to let all perl-modules using ExtUtils::MakeMaker at build-time "BuildRequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)". I had wanted to have deeper look into this problem throughout today, but haven't found the time for it (and my day is almost over). Ralf
