On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 09:58:27AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Tuesday 06 February 2007 06:29, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >>>>> "TC" == Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > TC> Since perl is special, perl packages are exempt from the > > TC> requirement for -devel packages for .h header files. > > > > I'm definitely for for this, although I wish someone who truly > > understands why arch-specific Perl modules need a .h file could > > explain it to us. For all I know it doesn't actually need to be > > packaged. > > They're installed for the usual reasons - something requires them, usually at > build time. See for example perl-DBI and perl-DBD-MySQL; the latter needs > DBI's *.h to build, ditto probably all other perl-DBD-*. > > Rather than blanket approval for the status quo, I think it would be better to > first discuss whether -devel packages for some perl modules should be > introduced instead. Does anyone know about how many perl packages we're talking about? If it's a small number I'd go with Ville and have them properly split out their *-devel. It's much cleaner that way. If it involves major surgery then we'd have to let this pass though, but I assume it will affect only a few. The packages I've seen carrying *.h files are mostly not suited becoming perl- prefixed anyway (in a monolithic package) as they are carrying more than modules. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpPRaTSTiP1b.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
