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

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Tue Feb 6 20:54:36 UTC 2007

On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 01:35:51PM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> 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. 

If there is a mass rebuild (e.g. by Matt's buildsystem) before test2
it could be used to check whether that split really harms
anything. But I think perhaps that's us being to pedantic in this
case, and we could revisit it after F7.

But it wouldn't hurt to add a forward compatible

Provides: perl-devel = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}

That way any current package that should depend on perl-devel instead
of or in addition to perl would have a transition time to fix the BRs.
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/ec7de4a0/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list