On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 10:27 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Robin Norwood <rnorwood(a)redhat.com> said:
> Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net> writes:
> > The best way to come up with a list probably is to see all the binary
> > RPMs that depend on perl or a perl module. Not all of them need
> > perl-devel to build, but I'd bet most of them do. A quick look at
> > rawhide/i386 finds over 100 packages that don't have perl in their name
> > that require perl.
>
> Well, as Ralf points out elsewhere in the thread, this will break
> packages upon rebuild, at which point they will need the appropriate
> BuildRequires added...So I think this will be a problem only if the
> package owner hasn't read this thread and isn't aware of the change.
There _could_ be some that don't break obviously. If the package is
autoconfed and perl is optional, it would just leave it out of the
build. Depending then on how the file list is specified, it could just
end up being built without perl support.
Right, this case can't be excluded.
Nevertheless I am inclined to consider this to be a rarely met corner
case, because the perl-split primarily touches perl modules which are
typically used at built time of perl-modules and are rarely used at
run-time by other packages.
That's probably not a big deal; at most there's probably only
a few such
packages, and for them at worst it would then result in a bugzilla
if/when someone tries to use the missing perl support (and then it is a
simple rebuild).
Exactly. ATM, I am not aware of any such package.
The only package I am aware about with weird module deps probably
needing deeper investigation is mod_perl (The FC6 version pulls in most
of the split-out modules - My gut feeling without having looked into
mod_perl's sources is "This probably isn't right".
Ralf