https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065490
--- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #10)
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #9)
> This package is far from being clean and should never have been approved.
>
> * MUSTFIX: Missing BRs:
> perl(Exporter)
> perl(XSLoader)
> perl(strict)
Requires
BuildRequires!!!
perl(Exporter)
perl(XSLoader)
perl(strict)
Right, that's the reason why they must also be BR'ed. The
package would fail
running during building (e.g. when running tests) if these are not present.
> * MUSTFIX: Missing BR: libsolv-devel
> The package links against libsolv.so and libsolvext.so
I think it had been added.
You are right, I missed it in this spec file's
clutter.
And while we're at it - This also doesn't make sense:
BuildRequires: libdb4-devel
...
%if 0%{?rhel_version} || 0%{?centos_version}
BuildRequires: db4-devel
%endif
...
The second BuildRequires: db4-devel is redundant to the first one.
> * MUSTFIX: Missing BR: perl-devel
> The package links against libperl.so
I can't see any regarding perl-devel, all except a note:
...
"Do not explicitly buildrequire "perl-devel"
That's what I consider a bug in the FPG and in perl's packaging.
But OK, then lets table this issue for now and stay with BR: perl
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component