Re: Perl packaging guidelines

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

 



On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 02:25:24PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> 
> First, the dependencies, both build- and run-time.
> Personally I like to list every module which is actually used
> since this means the package only fails to build when
> there's an actual issue, not just a change in the dependency
> chain.

But that also means that you'll be unnecessarily accumulating
cruft -- if things build, noone will check if with the next rebase,
all the listed BuildRequires are actually valid.

> Second, the %{__perl} macro.
> What are the benefits of using this (subjectively) ugly macro
> compared to simple 'perl'?  The only case in which I find it

Isn't it used for SCL, for example?

> Fourth, ExtUtils::MakeMaker vs Module::Build.
> Module::Build is currently being deprecated and removed from
> core, ExtUtils::MakeMaker becoming, once again, the preferred
> way.  Our guidelines should be updated to reflect that.

So it's basically about putting the text from

	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl/Tips?rd=PackagingTips/Perl#Makefile.PL_vs_Build.PL

to

	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Makefile.PL_vs_Build.PL

as well, right?

-- 
Jan Pazdziora
Principal Software Engineer, Identity Management Engineering, Red Hat
--
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




[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