On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:51:51PM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 13:13 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > 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. > > > 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. > > Well, here's a big one: > > perl. That hardly counts as a perl module package otherwise it would ahd been named perl-perl ;) > My concern is that if we make a perl-devel here, some things that > had perl as an unstated BuildRequires will suddenly stop building > until they add perl-devel. > > Not fatal, but rather intrusive. Thoughts? I would separate discussion of the perl package and the rest. But even if perl itself were to be split in perl and perl-devel, Matt's mass rebuilds would let the packages surface that need a change from BR: perl to BR: perl-devel. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpxDnOipuDnD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
