rpms/perl-CGI-Untaint-date/devel perl-CGI-Untaint-date.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2
Ralf Corsepius
rc040203 at freenet.de
Thu Aug 25 07:33:11 UTC 2005
- Previous message (by thread): rpms/perl-CGI-Untaint-date/devel perl-CGI-Untaint-date.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2
- Next message (by thread): rpms/perl-CGI-Untaint-date/devel perl-CGI-Untaint-date.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 07:49 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-08-25 at 08:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 12:34 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> > > Author: spot
> >
> > > Requires: perl(CGI::Untaint) >= 0.07
> > > Requires: perl(Date::Simple) >= 0.01
> > > Requires: perl(Date::Manip) >= 5.00
> >
> > I think, these "requires:" probably are redundant.
>
> Why? The Makefile.PL specifically checks for these versions (or later),
== BuildRequires
> which is presumably done for a reason. RPM will auto-generate the module
> dependencies, but not the version deps.
True, but these already are implicitly covered by the BuildRequires.
So, if FE is kept consistent, unless you are mixing CPAN or various
repositories with FE, there isn't any need to check again at install
time.
Ralf
PS.: When will threads on fedora-extras-commits be kept there and not be
torn into pieces by playing dirty games with Reply-To's?
- Previous message (by thread): rpms/perl-CGI-Untaint-date/devel perl-CGI-Untaint-date.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2
- Next message (by thread): rpms/perl-CGI-Untaint-date/devel perl-CGI-Untaint-date.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list