rpms/gnubiff/devel gnubiff.spec,1.4,1.5

[Peter Gordon]

Damien Durand (splinux) wrote:
> +* Sun Oct 15 2006 Damien Durand <splinux at fedoraproject.org> - 2.2.2-4
> +- Add perl-XML-Parser in BR

Shouldn't this be perl(XML::Parser), and not a hardcoded package name? The
reason for this is that (as I understand it) the perl module functionality may
be provided by another module or by Perl itself sometime in the future, and
therefore RPM would find that it would satisfy the XML::Parser module need, and
your spec file would thus need no changing.

Is there a policy of sorts on this? Packaging/Perl on the wiki doesn't mention
anything to this effect. Thanks.
-- 
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 251 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061016/3a23e61f/attachment.sig>