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

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:51:51PM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 13:13 +0100, 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.

> > > 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.
> 
> Well, here's a big one:
> 
> perl.

That hardly counts as a perl module package otherwise it would ahd
been named perl-perl ;)

> My concern is that if we make a perl-devel here, some things that
> had perl as an unstated BuildRequires will suddenly stop building
> until they add perl-devel.
> 
> Not fatal, but rather intrusive. Thoughts?

I would separate discussion of the perl package and the rest. But even
if perl itself were to be split in perl and perl-devel, Matt's mass
rebuilds would let the packages surface that need a change from BR:
perl to BR: perl-devel.
-- 
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/20070206/1a18cce1/attachment.sig>