[Fedora-packaging] Re: Draft: Perl packages don't need -devel for .h headers
Jose Pedro Oliveira
jpo at di.uminho.pt
Tue Feb 6 13:52:49 UTC 2007
Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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
>> 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.
Perl packages that include .h files (excluding the core perl)
Core: 2 perl packages
Extras: 16 perl packages
José Pedro Oliveira
* mailto: jpo at di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo *
* gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4616 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Fedora-packaging