10:37 a.m.
So,
I was waiting for feedback on the latest iteration of the perl spec file
before proceeding, but I haven't really gotten any - I guess people are
generally busy with their day jobs, etc. However, we need to make a
call here with the perl spec file. The way things are now, if we build
and release the current version, we'll break builds of various perl
modules unless:
o We add back perl-devel and some of the other subpackages as Requires
for the main perl spec file.
o We get those packages added to the standard buildroots - since perl is
already considered standard, it isn't really a stretch to me for the
-devel and related packages to be there too.
o We get package owners to add perl-devel + co to their package
BuildRequires sections.
We need to pick one of those three options (or a better one) and
communicate it to the Fedora community to proceed if we're going to use
the new perl for F7.
-RN
--
Robin Norwood
Red Hat, Inc.
"The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone."
-Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching
10:56 a.m.
Robin Norwood wrote:
So,
I was waiting for feedback on the latest iteration of the perl spec file
before proceeding, but I haven't really gotten any - I guess people are
generally busy with their day jobs, etc. However, we need to make a
call here with the perl spec file. The way things are now, if we build
and release the current version, we'll break builds of various perl
modules unless:
o We add back perl-devel and some of the other subpackages as Requires
for the main perl spec file.
o We get those packages added to the standard buildroots - since perl is
already considered standard, it isn't really a stretch to me for the
-devel and related packages to be there too.
o We get package owners to add perl-devel + co to their package
BuildRequires sections.
We need to pick one of those three options (or a better one) and
communicate it to the Fedora community to proceed if we're going to use
the new perl for F7.
I was quite happy to add BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or whatever's
appropriate for a given module for the packages I maintain. I'm still
happy to do this.
I can understand the desire to put perl-devel in the buildroot given the
lateness in the development cycle of the perl packaging change but only
as a temporary thing for F7 and something that would be reverted for F8.
Having the buildreqs correct in the packages has the be "the right thing
to do" in the long term.
Paul.
11:01 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 16:56 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
I was quite happy to add BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or
whatever's
appropriate for a given module for the packages I maintain. I'm still
happy to do this.
I can understand the desire to put perl-devel in the buildroot given the
lateness in the development cycle of the perl packaging change but only
as a temporary thing for F7 and something that would be reverted for F8.
Having the buildreqs correct in the packages has the be "the right thing
to do" in the long term.
Yes, I agree with this too, I just don't want to add stress to the F-7
cycle. We can drop perl-devel from the buildroot defaults in devel,
F-8+.
~spot
12:58 p.m.
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> writes:
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 16:56 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
> I was quite happy to add BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or whatever's
> appropriate for a given module for the packages I maintain. I'm still
> happy to do this.
>
> I can understand the desire to put perl-devel in the buildroot given the
> lateness in the development cycle of the perl packaging change but only
> as a temporary thing for F7 and something that would be reverted for F8.
> Having the buildreqs correct in the packages has the be "the right thing
> to do" in the long term.
Yes, I agree with this too, I just don't want to add stress to the F-7
cycle. We can drop perl-devel from the buildroot defaults in devel,
F-8+.
Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add
the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files
fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list
explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update
the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those
- do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel
+ co), or shall I?
-RN
--
Robin Norwood
Red Hat, Inc.
"The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone."
-Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching
1:04 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:58 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote:
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway"
<tcallawa(a)redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 16:56 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
>> I was quite happy to add BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or whatever's
>> appropriate for a given module for the packages I maintain. I'm still
>> happy to do this.
>>
>> I can understand the desire to put perl-devel in the buildroot given the
>> lateness in the development cycle of the perl packaging change but only
>> as a temporary thing for F7 and something that would be reverted for F8.
>> Having the buildreqs correct in the packages has the be "the right thing
>> to do" in the long term.
>
> Yes, I agree with this too, I just don't want to add stress to the F-7
> cycle. We can drop perl-devel from the buildroot defaults in devel,
> F-8+.
Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add
the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files
fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list
explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update
the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those
- do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel
+ co), or shall I?
I'll do it.
~spot
3:01 p.m.
On 4/16/07, Robin Norwood <rnorwood(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into
F7, add
the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files
fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list
explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update
the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those
- do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel
+ co), or shall I?
Wait -- I thought needing to BR perl-devel explicitly was something we
were trying to avoid (for portability, among other reasons). Have we
moved away from that?
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
3:18 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:01 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
On 4/16/07, Robin Norwood <rnorwood(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add
> the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files
> fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list
> explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update
> the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those
> - do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel
> + co), or shall I?
Wait -- I thought needing to BR perl-devel explicitly was something we
were trying to avoid (for portability, among other reasons). Have we
moved away from that?
Well, not BR perl-devel, but BR the perl components your package
actually need.
~spot
3:23 p.m.
On 4/16/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:01 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
> On 4/16/07, Robin Norwood <rnorwood(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add
> > the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files
> > fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list
> > explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update
> > the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those
> > - do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel
> > + co), or shall I?
>
> Wait -- I thought needing to BR perl-devel explicitly was something we
> were trying to avoid (for portability, among other reasons). Have we
> moved away from that?
Well, not BR perl-devel, but BR the perl components your package
actually need.
Ok, cool. I was hoping that was the case :)
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
10:23 a.m.
"Chris Weyl" <cweyl(a)alumni.drew.edu> writes:
On 4/16/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:01 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
> > On 4/16/07, Robin Norwood <rnorwood(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add
> > > the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files
> > > fixed for F8. I'll get an email together to fedora devel list
> > > explaining the changes and asking for feedback. We should also update
> > > the perl packaging guidelines wiki page(s). Spot, I think you own those
> > > - do you want to make the change (perl packages should now BR perl-devel
> > > + co), or shall I?
> >
> > Wait -- I thought needing to BR perl-devel explicitly was something we
> > were trying to avoid (for portability, among other reasons). Have we
> > moved away from that?
>
> Well, not BR perl-devel, but BR the perl components your package
> actually need.
Ok, cool. I was hoping that was the case :)
Oh, yeah, sorry. What he said ^. :-)
-RN
--
Robin Norwood
Red Hat, Inc.
"The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone."
-Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching
11:07 p.m.
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:58 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote:
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway"
<tcallawa(a)redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 16:56 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
>> I was quite happy to add BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or whatever's
>> appropriate for a given module for the packages I maintain. I'm still
>> happy to do this.
>>
>> I can understand the desire to put perl-devel in the buildroot given the
>> lateness in the development cycle of the perl packaging change but only
>> as a temporary thing for F7 and something that would be reverted for F8.
>> Having the buildreqs correct in the packages has the be "the right thing
>> to do" in the long term.
>
> Yes, I agree with this too, I just don't want to add stress to the F-7
> cycle. We can drop perl-devel from the buildroot defaults in devel,
> F-8+.
Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split into F7, add
the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files
fixed for F8.
Hmm - Why so reluctant/hesitant? Why not "_not_ _adding_ them
to the
buildroots"?
A "not-so-unlikely-to-happen" mass-rebuild to happen before F7's release
or individual future package upgrades then would likely catch them all
when "they are not present in the buildroots for F7".
With a little mutal collaboration from perl-package maintainers (and
ACL's widely disabled) this would largely be a mechanical process.
Ralf
10:52 a.m.
Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> writes:
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 13:58 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote:
[...]
> Ok, that seems to be the consensus. We'll roll the split
into F7, add
> the needed packages to the buildroots, and get the perl-* spec files
> fixed for F8.
Hmm - Why so reluctant/hesitant? Why not "_not_ _adding_ them to the
buildroots"?
A "not-so-unlikely-to-happen" mass-rebuild to happen before F7's release
or individual future package upgrades then would likely catch them all
when "they are not present in the buildroots for F7".
With a little mutal collaboration from perl-package maintainers (and
ACL's widely disabled) this would largely be a mechanical process.
This is certainly another way to go - in fact, I'd generally prefer to
experience all the pain now than later. The only thing is, I'm a coward
and I don't want to have to hide from a crowd of perl-package-owning
peasants outside my door. If I can just give them directions to your
house, I'd be fine with that.
Seriously, though, which way should we go with this? There will
probably be minor grumbling either way, but I don't think it will really
be that big a deal, so long as we communicate The Plan.
-RN
--
Robin Norwood
Red Hat, Inc.
"The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone."
-Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching
11:12 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 11:37 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote:
So,
I was waiting for feedback on the latest iteration of the perl spec file
before proceeding, but I haven't really gotten any - I guess people are
generally busy with their day jobs, etc.
[3 proposals]
That's what I've been enforcing in recent reviews is users to BR those
perl(XX) modules their packages actually require when building.
The advantage of this approach would be long term stability, because
packages then would use their "real requirements" instead of rpm helper
"properties" (such as "perl-devel") between which "real
requirements"
could be moved at any time.
We need to pick one of those three options (or a better one) and
communicate it to the Fedora community to proceed if we're going to use
the new perl for F7.
One detail I am not yet clear about:
Shall Fedora be allowed to provide separate perl modules, which also are
available as separate CPAN packages, but so far have been built as part
of the main perl src.rpm?
If yes, how? What would be the restrictions on EVR?
Ralf
11:36 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 18:12 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 11:37 -0400, Robin Norwood wrote:
> So,
>
> I was waiting for feedback on the latest iteration of the perl spec file
> before proceeding, but I haven't really gotten any - I guess people are
> generally busy with their day jobs, etc.
> [3 proposals]
That's what I've been enforcing in recent reviews is users to BR those
perl(XX) modules their packages actually require when building.
The advantage of this approach would be long term stability, because
packages then would use their "real requirements" instead of rpm helper
"properties" (such as "perl-devel") between which "real
requirements"
could be moved at any time.
*nod* perl-devel is really only "the devel files for perl(Core)". The
fact that it depends on all the other perl-included modules (e.g. CPAN)
is convenient, but not a long term fix.
One detail I am not yet clear about:
Shall Fedora be allowed to provide separate perl modules, which also are
available as separate CPAN packages, but so far have been built as part
of the main perl src.rpm?
If yes, how? What would be the restrictions on EVR?
My concern is that a newer version of a module that came bundled with
perl won't work well (or at all) with that version of perl. If we update
past it and perl stops working as expected (or won't rebuild properly),
we're in dire straits.
~spot
6216
days inactive
6217
days old
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
13 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Chris Weyl -
Paul Howarth -
Ralf Corsepius -
Robin Norwood -
Tom Callaway