Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664912 --- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar <ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-18 04:04:01 EST --- See the references I provided in parenthesis. perl(HTML::TreeBuilder::XPath) >= 0.11 is (not only) run time dependency: lib/HTML/TreeBuilder/LibXML.pm: sub replace_original { require HTML::TreeBuilder::XPath; Thus binary package needs to Require it. rpm-build is not perfect. It cannot find all dependencies. Like this one. In addition the module stated as run time dependency in META.yml. Provided developers are not silly, the have a reason why to require it. Even the replace_original() method is used in module synopsis. The perl(XML::LibXML) is not explicitly versioned in installed code. Thus rpm-build could not discover the version and export the dependency unversioned. However required version is defined in META.yml. This is current (unfortunate) practice of perl developers. The track versions in META.yml only and they assume user installs modules from CPANâdirectly. You cannot assume a user has the same package versions as were present at build time in Koji. The binary package must be self-describing. You can get the package into system in many ways. E.g. by downloading the package by hand and installing the package through rpm. You are right all F13--15 bring perl(XML::LibXML) >= 1.70 (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=962). Then you needn't BuildRequire the version explicitly too. It's inconsistent. So, I take back the perl(XML::LibXML) version FIX. However I insist on the perl(HTML::TreeBuilder::XPath) requirement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review