On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 03:28:52PM +0200, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
> 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.
We're in that situation already. See the response to Ralf's post.
>
> > 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?
I honestly have no idea. Could someone with some SCL experience
comment on this?
>
> > 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?
Yes, pretty much so.
Petr
Attachment:
pgpxj_z6VwEis.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
