On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 10:27 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Robin Norwood <rnorwood@xxxxxxxxxx> said: > > Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The best way to come up with a list probably is to see all the binary > > > RPMs that depend on perl or a perl module. Not all of them need > > > perl-devel to build, but I'd bet most of them do. A quick look at > > > rawhide/i386 finds over 100 packages that don't have perl in their name > > > that require perl. > > > > Well, as Ralf points out elsewhere in the thread, this will break > > packages upon rebuild, at which point they will need the appropriate > > BuildRequires added...So I think this will be a problem only if the > > package owner hasn't read this thread and isn't aware of the change. > > There _could_ be some that don't break obviously. If the package is > autoconfed and perl is optional, it would just leave it out of the > build. Depending then on how the file list is specified, it could just > end up being built without perl support. Right, this case can't be excluded. Nevertheless I am inclined to consider this to be a rarely met corner case, because the perl-split primarily touches perl modules which are typically used at built time of perl-modules and are rarely used at run-time by other packages. > That's probably not a big deal; at most there's probably only a few such > packages, and for them at worst it would then result in a bugzilla > if/when someone tries to use the missing perl support (and then it is a > simple rebuild). Exactly. ATM, I am not aware of any such package. The only package I am aware about with weird module deps probably needing deeper investigation is mod_perl (The FC6 version pulls in most of the split-out modules - My gut feeling without having looked into mod_perl's sources is "This probably isn't right". Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
