Perl requires/provides proposal

[Chip Turner]

Michael Schwendt <ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de> writes:

> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 22:11:22 -1000 (HST), Warren Togami wrote:
> 
> > Should we leave the existing fedora.us Extras as-is, or should we provide
> > maybe a "perl-virtual" package that provides the equivalent virtual
> > provides as this new standard for FC2.  That way all perl modules from now
> > on can have theoretical compatibility and exact Requires, completely
> > avoiding these ugly hacks of requiring a directory.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Sounds good. Let's touch them when the time has come. The perl module
> packages in fedora.us should be pretty stable upgrade-wise, since they
> don't depend on a specific Perl version (except for automated sanity
> related deps like perl >= 0:5.005). But for update packages to be modified
> and prepared for FC 1.90, we should no longer include "unowned"
> vendor/site/multi directories, even if the updated package will create
> unowned directories on FC1. As soon as a new perl core package is
> available, which provides the necessary virtual capabilities as Chip
> Turner has explained, we could simulate it with a meta-package for FC1 to
> benefit from being able to build the same src.rpm for multiple releases of
> FC and increase the dependencies of noarch.rpms. We could make such a
> package include the unowned Perl directories, too.

Would an errata of perl 5.8.3 for FC1 (and maybe RHL9) with the proper
provides, directory ownerships, etc help?  Anyone willing to help test
such a beast? :)

Chip

-- 
Chip Turner                   cturner at redhat.com
                              Red Hat, Inc.