rpms/perl-CGI-Untaint-date/devel perl-CGI-Untaint-date.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

[Paul Howarth]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> IMO, versioned perl-module deps, should not be applied unless rpm can
> generate them automatically, because manually adding them voids rpm's
> automatic perl-module deps to a large extend,

Not really - it *adds* to the deps automatically found by RPM. There are 
other cases where manual deps are needed too, for instance in #166183 
where it's necessary to manually add deps for perl(Class::Accessor) and
perl(Class::Accessor::Fast). This isn't just a corner case either - I 
fell over the consequence of not adding these myself earlier today.

> and adds a considerable
> (unreasonable?) amount of overhead to writing perl-rpm specs.

I'm not suggesting it should be compulsory, but if someone's gone to the 
trouble of specifying the version numbers, why not?

> To put it differently: Not using manually added versioned perl-module
> deps is a compromise, which doesn't do any harm unless users try to
> enter corner cases.

But what is the harm in manually added versioned perl-module deps for 
*anyone*?

Paul.