On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:51:51PM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 13:13 +0100, 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.
> > Rather than blanket approval for the status quo, I think
> > 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.
Well, here's a big one:
That hardly counts as a perl module package otherwise it would ahd
been named perl-perl ;)
My concern is that if we make a perl-devel here, some things that
had perl as an unstated BuildRequires will suddenly stop building
until they add perl-devel.
Not fatal, but rather intrusive. Thoughts?
I would separate discussion of the perl package and the rest. But even
if perl itself were to be split in perl and perl-devel, Matt's mass
rebuilds would let the packages surface that need a change from BR:
perl to BR: perl-devel.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net