Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947449 --- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #1) > This is apparently going to epel5, too. Yes, I try to make everything EL-5 compatible unless there's some requirement that can't be satisfied there, such as requiring a later version of a module that's bundled with perl in EL-5. > Everything seems good to me, approving. Thanks. > I like to require perl(strict) and perl(warnings) as well since there's no > real difference between pragmas and modules. The same applies to 'perl' > itself -- it gets called during the build but is not guaranteed to be in the > buildroot. > I understand some may view this as extreme; just wanted to note that :) Yes, I do think it's a bit extreme, but at least it's consistent. I draw the line myself with modules/pragmas that are dual-lived: if they're dual-lived then I specify them explicitly, otherwise I don't. As for the perl dependency, well if perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or its equivalent doesn't pull it in as a dependency then I think we'll have a lot of FTBFS packages. I can't really envisage any sane way of packaging perl where that dependency wouldn't be present. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Liwr4nev0y&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review