Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gwyddion https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187294 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-09-11 19:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #25) Still issues needing work: * I tested that the modules subpackage can be merged with the libs subpackage without any rpmlint warning and it certainly makes sense to merge those 2 subpackages. * gwyddion-plugin-examples requires /usr/bin/env instead of ruby and python. I guess that's due to the shebang beeing something like: #! /usr/bin/env python The python (and python modules, if needed) and ruby dependency should certainly be added (perl is allready picked up). * rpmlint dislikes public domain but likes Public Domain. I guess you should change it, or, alternatively, fill a bug report against rpmlint. > And now to the dependency issue. I'm afraid it's all upside down. > > A perl module *extends* the interpreter, it does not *use* it. I also uses it since the module is interpreted by the interpreter. > For comparison with an area where things still work logically: how many -devel > packages require gcc? I will save you counting: Zero. None. Nada. Not a single one. > > Why is it so? Because they do not really require gcc, they only provide > extensions, although one needs gcc to use them in programs (or not to use, one > needs gcc to compile stuff no matter he uses the extension or not). I agree that it is a valid analogy. It is not exactly the same, however, as one may argue that another compiler than gcc may be used. (and also it is a runtime dependency, not only a compile time dependency, but it is irrelevant, since other -devel packages, that are compile time dependencies are required). > So the module -> interpreter dependency is not a hard dependency, but it still > has a reason. It is a convenience dependency. We expect someone installing a > perl module does it because > > (a) he installs it to fulfill requirements of a perl script, and the dependency > is redundant then but does not harm, or > > (b) he wants to write perl scripts using this module, and here we save him some > work -- of course, if he wishes to write scripts that do not use any module he > still has to install perl himself but that's just it. > > Case (a) occurs when one installs gwyddion-plugin-examples (remember the > dependency is a harmless redundancy here), case (b) does *not* occur because the > module is not meant to be publicly used. I disagree with that, I think that we are in case (b). Even though it is not meant to be publicly used from the upstream point of view, in my opinion it is something that should be provided to the fedora user in case he wants to use the module. It is a regular module from the fedora point of view. If it could be easily packaged like a regular module it would have been better. Since it is too much work i think not having the modules as regular modules isn't a blocker. (example) plugins use them, so either they are packaged to be used or they shouldn't be packaged at all, and the example plugins shouldn't be packaged, in that case. But even though we are in case (b), I agree with your point about modules not stricly requiring interpreters (with the analogy with gcc, which could be extended to gcc/glibc-devel). perl dependencies are found automatically, however, so at least the perl module should be in a separate package for that reason (or perl dependencies should be removed), since the -libs package shouldn't bring in perl. So, regarding the requirement on interpreters and packaging in sub packages, I am not so sure now that it is a blocker (although I still think it is better...). Maybe I'll ask on the extras-list. > [discursion] > To see how far the expectation-based dependencies got from the real world, look > at the `-devel requires pkgconfig' above. The dependency stated by the policy > is actually nonsense, one can compile programs using the library without > pkgconfig just fine (only with more manual work, and certain people will frown > upon you, etc.). The real dependency is that a program whose configure script > uses pkgconfig requires pkgconfig to build. > [/discursion] If I remember well, the reason why pkgconfig should be a requires has been argued on the lists. I don't remember the reasons, but if you disagree with that idea, you can rise the issue on fedora-extras list. Anyway it always makes sense to Requires pkgconfig for the pkgconfig directory owning. Do you disagree with that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review