https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152319 --- Comment #12 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #9) > (In reply to Paul Howarth from comment #7) > > (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #6) > > > You are right that the patch is wrong. The only slnames that need a > > > correction are the LGPL's. I think more appropriate place for a dependency > > > on Software::License is Module::Build rather then Module::Starter. > > > > That's what I thought too but it might introduce bootstrapping issues, with > > the bootstrap Module::Build not having the dependency and the dual-lived one > > subsequently introducing it. > > I'm aware of it. I will put the dependency into "not bootstrapping" > condition. If you do that, are you then going to post-bootstrap rebuild every package that pulled in Module::Build during the bootstrap process, to make sure it still builds OK with Software::License in the buildroot? Adding bootstrap-dependent Requires (as opposed to bootstrap-dependent RuildRequires) has a much bigger impact in terms of post-bootstrap rebuilds I think. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EMr3NF8Gij&a=cc_unsubscribe -- 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
