[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Bug 230608] missing config.h in latest -14

On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 11:28 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Friday 02 March 2007 11:17:24 Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> > I don't see any fault in adding perl-devel to the FC7 buildroot, with
> > the caveat that it will not be there in FC8+. Thoughts?
> I'd rather not change things multiple times.
Well, exactly the reason why I would like to see perl-devel in FC7's
buildroot. It avoids forcing packagers to change their packages NOW.

Remember: Adding perl-devel to the buildroot affects one person (you).
Not adding it and affects 100s of packages and dozens of packagers.

> Why does Ralf think it hasn't been baked yet?  I'm missing that context.

This change causes most (all?) perl modules and applications using perl
(comprising noarch packages) to depend on perl's config.h at build time.

The primary question to clarify would be:

What is the cause, why (esp. noarch) perl-modules now require a c-header
(perl's config.h) and (thereby gcc) to build? [1]

The next question would be: What is the correct step to resolve this
issue inside of RPM spec?

At least I don't know the answer (yet) and see a need for

Adding "BR: perl-devel" could be the answer, 
but the answer could also be along the lines of
* The split is illegitimate, config.h must stay part of the main
* Missing (indirect) dep somewhere else (e.g. inside of another
* Bug in one of the perl-modules being used to process
* bug in perl
I see many possibilities.

I.e. ATM, a recommendation for "BR: perl-devel" seems premature to me.


[1] Note: noarch packages requires a c-header and gcc to build!

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]