Re: Breaking perl...

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 11:37 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote:
> So,
> 
> I was waiting for feedback on the latest iteration of the perl spec file
> before proceeding, but I haven't really gotten any - I guess people are
> generally busy with their day jobs, etc. 

> [3 proposals]

That's what I've been enforcing in recent reviews is users to BR those
perl(XX) modules their packages actually require when building.


The advantage of this approach would be long term stability, because
packages then would use their "real requirements" instead of rpm helper
"properties" (such as "perl-devel") between which "real requirements"
could be moved at any time.

> We need to pick one of those three options (or a better one) and
> communicate it to the Fedora community to proceed if we're going to use
> the new perl for F7.
One detail I am not yet clear about:

Shall Fedora be allowed to provide separate perl modules, which also are
available as separate CPAN packages, but so far have been built as part
of the main perl src.rpm?

If yes, how? What would be the restrictions on EVR?

Ralf



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Devel]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite Information]
  Powered by Linux