On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 05:00:14PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 04/01/2016 03:46 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 12:14:43PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > >>On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 02:43:41PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > >>>Requires: (perl-generators if perl-libs) > >>> > >>That's interesting idea. I only worry there could be cases when the > >>perl-generators were unnecessarily installed. E.g. you install vim-enhanced, > >>thus you have perl-libs, and you install rpm-build for building non-perl > >>packages. Then you will have perl-generators. I'm not sure how much it > >>would bother people. > >> > >One more issue. It would not work if you had a spec file that does not need > >a perl for building. Spec that only installs a perl script into /usr/bin. > >I know there are some. > > These package should be considered broken. > > We require run-time deps to be present as build-deps to make sure these > packages actually are runable and installable. > Oh, really? I know it's good to run tests, but still there are plenty of packages without tests (covering the perl scipts), so besides knowing we had all run-time dependencies on build-time, build-requiring them does not have other benefits. In my opinion, it only proves the package was installable into the build root. But users install the packages days or weeks after building them, when the repository is different. I'm not sure the expense of inflating build root is worth of it. Especially if we can do proper check on compose. -- Petr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
