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

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Tue Feb 6 19:35:51 UTC 2007

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 20:31 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:

> > Well, here's a big one:
> > 
> > perl.
> That hardly counts as a perl module package otherwise it would ahd
> been named perl-perl ;)

Well, it is a perl module package, it has several perl modules inside of
it. The main module in this case is called "CORE", but there is also
a .h file in the Encode module (also inside 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.

Well, I'm trying to review the core perl package, and part of that has
been a near total spec rewrite. I need to know whether I should add a
perl-devel or not. 


More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list