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

Re: Fedora Core 1 Test Update: spamassassin-2.63-0.1



On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 12:18, Warren Togami wrote:

> <mschwendt> warren: that's why it is unfortunate that fedora.us packages 
> must work around unowned directories by owning them. Creates problems 
> like this.

Well, now that the newer perl packages finally own those dirs properly,
I think it'd be a good idea to stop the directory ownership bloating in
perl-* module packages, both for ones rolled for FC2+ _and_ earlier,
even though I do see the problem it creates for older distros whose perl
package does not own the vendor and friends dirs.  The fedora.us QA
queue has lots of examples of perl-* packages that have been modified to
"reduce directory ownership bloat".

Recent rpm versions contain some new %{perl_*} variables which make this
easier.

While on the subject of perl directory ownership, IMO perl packages
should go one step further than just requiring their own versioned
vendor_perl and friends.  They should own whatever they have in @INC:

  perl -e 'print join("\n", @INC)'

That would make it possible to do working directory based dependencies
in module packages.  If perl 5.8.7 is compatible with 5.8.6 and has the
5.8.6 vendor_perl and friends in @INC, the 5.8.7 package should create
and own both the relevant 5.8.6 and 5.8.7 dirs.

> Without Chip's suggestion of virtual Provides in place, what Requires 
> line should go into this spamassassin FC1 update?  Should we own the 
> directories in spamassassin, like we do with fedora.us perl modules? 
> Opinions please.

Maybe depend on the versioned perl binary?

  Requires: %{_bindir}/perl%(eval "%{__perl} -V:version" ; echo $version)




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