2016-10-25 9:54 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Seyman <emmanuel(a)seyman.fr>:
* Nicolas Chauvet [24/10/2016 17:46] :
>
> Can you show me a perl noarch package that would built without
> perl-devel (in buildroot as a remote dependency).
It's not just perl packages, it's every package that contains a perl script
or a perl library. Back when perl-generators was been discussed on the perl
mailing list, these were the rule more than they were the exception.
If this has changed, it's probably best to file a bug in Fedora's bugzilla.
> The problem is that perl-generator is a distro specific package, so it
> would be better hidden behind perl-devel or even
> perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker.
What does "distro specific" mean here? The perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker and
perl-devel packages are just as distro specific as perl-generators (Debian
doesn't have packages with those names, for example).
This is distro agnostic perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker), distro specific
perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker.
perl-devel is no harm, because on RPM based distro, it's usual to have
-devel packages.
But you are still answering your question , not mine.
I was not talking about packages that ends having a perl script in it
where adding perl-generators is perfectly understandable and fine.
Long term fix is that rich dependencies can probably fix that by
having perl and rpmbuild to requires perl-generators or something like
that.
But rich dependency cannot be used for now.
I was more talking about perl script such as perl-Test-Simple where
you need to have perl-generators added even if it could be a
dependency of perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or else.
At least I don't understand why it's not added as a dependency of perl-devel.
Now I don't care that much, it's just that the perl packaging has
grown a fedora tag in it's face and it's puffiness is loathful.
I also note that for now perl-generators is epel specific, so if you
don't rebuild your package in epel, you will be doomed.
Thx for fixing perl packages in RPM Fusion anyway.
It was just unrelated thought.
--
-
Nicolas (kwizart)