On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 15:12 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:04:47 Robin Norwood wrote:
> Well, would you be happier with the 'not adding the packages to the
> buildroots' idea? IOW, package owners will have to add the proper
> BuildRequires to their packages (which is really the more correct
> solution).
Well, not exactly, because either way the packages as is will not rebuild, if
you unlink perl-devel from perl.
I think there is consensus amongst most perl-packagers that such a
circular dep between perl<->perl-devel is not useful. Unfortunately
FC7's perl has not seen updates in recent weeks, which would have
allowed to iron out issue earlier.
The only way I would be _really_ happy is
if all our perl packages picked up this dep change and were rebuilt so that
anybody rebuilding our shipped srpms can do so without issue. If I can't get
that... then yeah, I think we should force the addition of perl-devel into
specs by not making it available in the buildroot. Of course I may be voted
down...
Note that all this only affects "BuildRequires:". I.e. packages would
only be hit by the "packaging changes" during rebuilds (In 90% of all
cases they fail very hard with obvious fixes implied).
So, simply pushing (bug-fixed) split perl packages and not rebuilding
nor changing buildroots would effectively mean to "grandfather" the "old
packaging".
Ralf