On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 15:12 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:04:47 Robin Norwood wrote: > > Well, would you be happier with the 'not adding the packages to the > > buildroots' idea? IOW, package owners will have to add the proper > > BuildRequires to their packages (which is really the more correct > > solution). > > Well, not exactly, because either way the packages as is will not rebuild, if > you unlink perl-devel from perl. I think there is consensus amongst most perl-packagers that such a circular dep between perl<->perl-devel is not useful. Unfortunately FC7's perl has not seen updates in recent weeks, which would have allowed to iron out issue earlier. > The only way I would be _really_ happy is > if all our perl packages picked up this dep change and were rebuilt so that > anybody rebuilding our shipped srpms can do so without issue. If I can't get > that... then yeah, I think we should force the addition of perl-devel into > specs by not making it available in the buildroot. Of course I may be voted > down... Note that all this only affects "BuildRequires:". I.e. packages would only be hit by the "packaging changes" during rebuilds (In 90% of all cases they fail very hard with obvious fixes implied). So, simply pushing (bug-fixed) split perl packages and not rebuilding nor changing buildroots would effectively mean to "grandfather" the "old packaging". Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
