[Fedora-packaging] Re: Draft: Perl packages don't need -devel for .h headers

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 09:58:27AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 February 2007 06:29, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > >>>>> "TC" == Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> writes:
> >
> > TC> Since perl is special, perl packages are exempt from the
> > TC> requirement for -devel packages for .h header files.
> >
> > I'm definitely for for this, although I wish someone who truly
> > understands why arch-specific Perl modules need a .h file could
> > explain it to us.  For all I know it doesn't actually need to be
> > packaged.
> 
> They're installed for the usual reasons - something requires them, usually at 
> build time.  See for example perl-DBI and perl-DBD-MySQL; the latter needs 
> DBI's *.h to build, ditto probably all other perl-DBD-*.
> 
> Rather than blanket approval for the status quo, I think it would be better to 
> first discuss whether -devel packages for some perl modules should be 
> introduced instead.

Does anyone know about how many perl packages we're talking about? If
it's a small number I'd go with Ville and have them properly split out
their *-devel. It's much cleaner that way. If it involves major
surgery then we'd have to let this pass though, but I assume it will
affect only a few.

The packages I've seen carrying *.h files are mostly not suited
becoming perl- prefixed anyway (in a monolithic package) as they are
carrying more than modules.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20070206/6e618569/attachment.sig>