Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 00:55 -0400, bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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: perl-POE-Filter-IRCD
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=198881
cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
------- Additional Comments From cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-19 00:46 EST -------
Ok, I think the rhetoric here is getting a touch out of hand, and making a very
large issue out of a not-so-large one.
Perl modules are fairly "special", in that basically the same specfile can
handle all of them (with package specific description, etc, being adapted, of
course). They're also special in that there's a LOT of them.
I have just looked through the specs of the perl module packages I
maintain. The following ones might be said to be close to the original
template (and I'm not including the removal of the redundant noarch
stuff as being a difference of note here):
perl-Crypt-DSA
perl-Crypt-SmbHash
perl-IO-stringy
perl-Crypt-DSA has some additional buildreqs not in the template btw.
The following have something of significance that's not in the template:
perl-Authen-DigestMD5
perl-Class-Loader
perl-Convert-BinHex
perl-Crypt-DH
perl-Crypt-Primes
perl-Crypt-Random
perl-Crypt-RSA
perl-Date-Simple
perl-Mail-Mbox-MessageParser
perl-MailTools
perl-Math-GMP
perl-Math-Pari
perl-MIME-tools
perl-Net-SSH-Perl
perl-Tie-EncryptedHash
So I don't think it's true to say that the same template works for most
perl modules. Nor do I think that just because perl modules are small
and plentiful, their packages don't deserve the same degree of love and
attention that any other other package would get.
Paul.
--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
