perl package split - if you maintain a perl-* module, read this message.

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Robin Norwood <rnorwood at redhat.com> said:
> Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net> writes:
> > The best way to come up with a list probably is to see all the binary
> > RPMs that depend on perl or a perl module.  Not all of them need
> > perl-devel to build, but I'd bet most of them do.  A quick look at
> > rawhide/i386 finds over 100 packages that don't have perl in their name
> > that require perl.
> 
> Well, as Ralf points out elsewhere in the thread, this will break
> packages upon rebuild, at which point they will need the appropriate
> BuildRequires added...So I think this will be a problem only if the
> package owner hasn't read this thread and isn't aware of the change.

There _could_ be some that don't break obviously.  If the package is
autoconfed and perl is optional, it would just leave it out of the
build.  Depending then on how the file list is specified, it could just
end up being built without perl support.

That's probably not a big deal; at most there's probably only a few such
packages, and for them at worst it would then result in a bugzilla
if/when someone tries to use the missing perl support (and then it is a
simple rebuild).

-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.