Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431559
Summary: Circular build dependency Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: perl-Params-Util AssignedTo: rc040203@freenet.de ReportedBy: ed@membled.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com,lxtnow@gmail.com
Building perl-PPI needs perl-Params-Util. Building perl-Params-Util needs perl-Test-MinimumVersion. Building perl-Test-MinimumVersion needs perl-Perl-MinimumVersion. Building perl-Perl-MinimumVersion needs perl-PPI.
I suggest breaking the chain at perl-Params-Util. It doesn't really need perl-Test-MinimumVersion, only uses it in one part of its test suite (t/99_pmv). If the module is not installed then the test is skipped automatically. So you can just remove this BuildRequires dependency from perl-Params-Util.spec.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Circular build dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431559
------- Additional Comments From rc040203@freenet.de 2008-02-05 09:15 EST ------- We build perl incrementally, so I don't see which bug removing this dep would fix.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Circular build dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431559
------- Additional Comments From ed@membled.com 2008-02-05 09:45 EST ------- I came across the dependency cycle while upgrading perl to 5.10, which involves rebuilding the perl RPM and all the modules. I expect you will hit the same thing when you go to 5.10, unless you have some special magic.
In general it seems like a good thing to make sure you don't already need a package installed in order to build that package. It's unavoidable for some essential things like gcc or the shell, but here it's easily avoidable. There is no ill effect from removing the BuildRequires line. So I think it's worth fixing even if technically you do not consider circular deps to be a bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Circular build dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431559
------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@redhat.com 2008-02-05 19:23 EST ------- A lot of packages have been rebuilt against perl 5.10 in the dist-f9-perl tag. This is part of the plan to merge 5.10 into Fedora 9 (see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Perl510 )
Specifically, the packages you've pointed out have already been rebuilt. I just temporarily disabled the tests and the BuildRequires, rebuilt, then rebuilt again when the BR were done.
Static repo of what has been built already is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/dist-f9-perl-build-current/
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Circular build dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431559
------- Additional Comments From ed@membled.com 2008-02-06 05:27 EST -------
Specifically, the packages you've pointed out have already been rebuilt. I just temporarily disabled the tests and the BuildRequires, rebuilt, then rebuilt again when the BR were done.
Hmm... if the BuildRequires are not actually needed to build the package (which is evidently true, since you built it without them) then surely they should not be marked as BuildRequires? They are just nice-to-have packages which may enable some extra tests to run, but the resulting package builds perfectly either way.
(If having the full test suite is important, you could still do the build-install-rebuild cycle as at present, since the tests automatically turn themselves on if the other modules are present. But it would no longer be necessary to manually comment and uncomment the not-really-required BuildRequires lines, which seems a bit of a charade.)
Thanks for the link to what you've built so far.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431559
--- Comment #6 from Bug Zapper fedora-triage-list@redhat.com 2009-06-09 19:29:54 EDT ---
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'.
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life.
Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.
Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431559
Ed Avis ed@membled.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG
--- Comment #7 from Ed Avis ed@membled.com 2009-06-12 11:40:04 EDT --- Closing this since it's not really a bug, just a philosophical issue. I still believe that putting in circular build deps is a bad idea (especially so if you then have to manually comment and uncomment them in order to build the packages) but it is best discussed on the mailing list.
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla