On 29/06/16 23:27, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2016-06-29, Jeff Fearn <jfearn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I would like the perl team to consider taking this opportunity to remove >> non-standard behavior instead of adding more. The whole perl/perl-devel >> split was to make the install smaller, mostly for build root reasons. >> Since that is no longer a consideration can we make it so that requiring >> perl gets you a proper perl core installed? >> >> That should stop most breakage as anyone using none core stuff should >> have had it specifically required anyway. >> > What applies to any Fedora package, applies to Perl packages too. > > For example we have about 2800 Perl packages, but only 493 are > architecture specific that must depend on perl-devel and GCC. (I know > the number because two months ago I accidentally removed perl-devel.) But did you replace perl-devel with a proper perl core? Because unless you did that you are just pointing out how broken the perl shipped in Fedora is. > So no, I do not consider making the core modules somewhat special. You aren't *making* them special, you are accepting that this is how perl works, this is how perl is designed to work, and that people should have to care about the special packaging naming magic in spec files to get their sources packaged. > Perl > would have fallen into the same mud where Python or TeX Live is now. Fedora's & Red Hat's names are mud in the perl world, have been for years, and it won't change until we stop breaking perl core. Cheers, Jeff. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
