On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 02:25:05PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: > Looking at the IRC backlog, I don't think this will actually > solve the issue; it will only install the full Perl when you > explicitly type "dnf install perl". If parts of Perl get pulled > in as dependencies of something else, the same users will still > be confused since it will appear as if they have Perl yet it > still won't be the whole thing. > This specific issue won't be addressed. It literarly says Fedora cannot do any subpackages. I aim only on explicit installation of "perl". They said Debian also offered minimal subpackage without core modules and they said they were fine with it. My general impression was they were satisfied with my proposal. > I'm worried this will change the behavior many Fedora users > and packagers are used to for very litte if any real benefit. > But that's just a feeling. > In my personal point of view, "perl" or "perl-interpreter" is just an identifier and I don't care which one Fedora will use. Becasue it's "very litte if any real benefit" I hasitated to come with this change without any external force. And if it makes them happy, why not to do it. Unfortunately I cannot tell which camp (for or against the change) is bigger. > I haven't read the change proposal yet but do you have any plans > regarding a mass build & runtime dependency substitution of > "perl" with "perl-interpreter" in SPEC files? > You are right. Run-time dependecies can be fixed only by rebuilding packages. I forgot on it. I planned only changing spec files (BuildRequires and Requires). Fortunatelly it's only 81 packages. I think I can rebuild them. I will add it to the Change proposal. -- Petr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
