Perl requires/provides proposal

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:11:22 -1000 (HST), Warren Togami wrote:

> Should we leave the existing fedora.us Extras as-is, or should we provide
> maybe a "perl-virtual" package that provides the equivalent virtual
> provides as this new standard for FC2.  That way all perl modules from now
> on can have theoretical compatibility and exact Requires, completely
> avoiding these ugly hacks of requiring a directory.
> 
> Thoughts?

Sounds good. Let's touch them when the time has come. The perl module
packages in fedora.us should be pretty stable upgrade-wise, since they
don't depend on a specific Perl version (except for automated sanity
related deps like perl >= 0:5.005). But for update packages to be modified
and prepared for FC 1.90, we should no longer include "unowned"
vendor/site/multi directories, even if the updated package will create
unowned directories on FC1. As soon as a new perl core package is
available, which provides the necessary virtual capabilities as Chip
Turner has explained, we could simulate it with a meta-package for FC1 to
benefit from being able to build the same src.rpm for multiple releases of
FC and increase the dependencies of noarch.rpms. We could make such a
package include the unowned Perl directories, too.

--