----- "Paul Howarth" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 16/03/10 16:33, Iain Arnell wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Marcela > Maslanova<mmaslano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> ----- "Iain Arnell"<iarnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> I > >>> guess perl.spec needs a little more work up front to split as much > as > >>> possible into separate sub-packages. > >> > >> Ok, but in this case we need for almost every provides a > sub-package. > >> Wouldn't be sufficient to check perl.spec and create sub-package > after > >> the separated module will be needed? > > > > That would also work, of course. But should be mentioned in the > guidelines too. > > Wouldn't this approach mean that the main perl package needed to be > updated whenever a new updated module was needed, which was one of the > > things this scheme was trying to avoid? > > Paul. > -- > Fedora Extras Perl SIG > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl > perl-devel mailing list > perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel So, test with Getopt::Long showed that there would be conflicting man-pages. I don't think create sub-package for all modules is possible. Also this doesn't help readability of specfile. These "smaller" modules can be updated once a time in main package. People usually want updates only of those modules which already have sub-package. I'm not saying that's the best solution... Any other better ideas? -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
