Axel Thimm wrote:
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 09:58:27AM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 February 2007 06:29, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>>> "TC" == Tom 'spot' Callaway
>> TC> Since perl is special, perl packages are exempt from the
>> TC> requirement for -devel packages for .h header files.
>> I'm definitely for for this, although I wish someone who truly
>> understands why arch-specific Perl modules need a .h file could
>> explain it to us. For all I know it doesn't actually need to be
> They're installed for the usual reasons - something requires them, usually at
> build time. See for example perl-DBI and perl-DBD-MySQL; the latter needs
> DBI's *.h to build, ditto probably all other perl-DBD-*.
> Rather than blanket approval for the status quo, I think it would be better to
> first discuss whether -devel packages for some perl modules should be
> introduced instead.
Does anyone know about how many perl packages we're talking about? If
it's a small number I'd go with Ville and have them properly split out
their *-devel. It's much cleaner that way. If it involves major
surgery then we'd have to let this pass though, but I assume it will
affect only a few.
The packages I've seen carrying *.h files are mostly not suited
becoming perl- prefixed anyway (in a monolithic package) as they are
carrying more than modules.
Perl packages that include .h files (excluding the core perl)
Core: 2 perl packages
Extras: 16 perl packages
José Pedro Oliveira
* mailto: jpo(a)di.uminho.pt * http://gsd.di.uminho.pt/jpo
* gpg fingerprint = F9B6 8D87 859D 1C94 48F0 84C0 9749 9EB5 91BD 851B *