[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
[Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
- From: bugzilla redhat com
- To: fedora-extras-list redhat com
- Subject: [Bug 184530] Review Request: perl-RPM2
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:05:52 -0500
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: perl-RPM2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=184530
------- Additional Comments From paul city-fan org 2006-03-17 12:05 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in
> > the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
>
> That MUST has been debated before, and especially in case of perl module
> packages buildrequring perl. Blocking packages based on that is IMHO a bit
> silly, and yes, so is the guideline and I don't have anything against fixing it.
I agree that it's a silly MUST but the right the to do is to change the rule
rather than ignore it.
I would suggest the following:
Instead of:
- MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in the
exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
- MUST: All other Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
I'd have:
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]