At 09:29 PM 9/4/2005, Frank Cusack wrote:
On August 31, 2005 11:41:50 PM -0400 Dan Franklin <dfranklin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
At 04:02 PM 8/31/2005, Frank Cusack wrote:
So it seems perl.req should look for 'use' AND calls to explicitly named
package methods, and perl.prov should look at filenames AND explicit
package statements.
Yes, it could do that. rpmbuild doesn't currently go down to that
level for C++ code. There is
some danger of generating an excessive list of requirements, since
just because a call to an
explicitly named package occurs in the file doesn't mean it will
ever occur in practice.
Not sure what you mean about C++. C++ code generates ELF binaries
and all required shared libraries are listed as dependencies. So
shared libraries' provides are complete, and requires are complete
wrt link information recorded in the binary (which may be incorrect
or excessive, but unlike Perl will fail to run at all if a library whose
code isn't actually called is linked against).
The C++ analogy is probably not a good one - never mind.
The essential point is that Perl package names may occur in Perl code
without indicating an absolute requirement of the package - the
package may be able to run without them. So I'd steer clear of
them. I think that automatically added requirements should
concentrate on those that the package absolutely needs in order to run.
Dan Franklin
_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
