On 2013-07-04, Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I agree, and alluded to that before. I personally haven't included any > non-dual-lived modules as buildreqs in my own perl module packages. > > However, from the point of view of consistency and simplicity, it's safe > to build-require anything that a package "use"s, "require"s etc., i.e. > it's harmless to add them, and the omission of core module buildreqs has > caused problems in the past, e.g. when Data::Dumper and Digest::MD5 were > sub-packaged. So I wouldn't be averse to a guideline that said to > include all of them, even if they were implemented in the interpreter, > as that's easier to understand and check than a potentially long list of > pragmas and other exceptions. > I agree with Paul. I also used to omit non-dual-living (CPAN or Fedora) packages but then I figured out that it's easier and less error-prone to declare all dependencies than to `maintain' a list of modules that will `never' dual-live. I'm not a friend of verbose guidelines especially if upper (global Fedora) guidelines already define the best practices (specify all dependencies). However I can see the Perl guidelines are quite out-dated a they would desire an update. And if it helps to guide packagers, then we can compose new Perl guidelines. -- Petr -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
