git perl-less build?

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Petr Stodulka <pstodulk at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3.6.2015 13:56, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 07:19:10AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015, at 05:23 AM, Petr Stodulka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> I have this request on bugzilla [0] for perl-less build of git due to
>>>> large dependency on Perl modules, which is unwanted for atomic.
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure that's good idea.
>>>> With this change we will create places for error messages about missing
>>>> perl modules and that's something what we don't want.
>>>
>>> I think we could design things so that existing users got git-perl on
>>> upgrades.
>>>
>>>> E.g. missing git-add--interactive will bring one unusable option which
>>>> will cause error message like this. I have two other bugs where I solve
>>>> similar troubles. Separate whole git-add doesn't make sense. So if this
>>>> is good trade off approved by others, OK, we can do that, with notice
>>>> that some error messages can appear.
>>>
>>> Right, I think were this package to exist, users would understand that
>>> it doesn't have all of the git functionality.
>>
>> What about adopting something similar to what has been done for the R
>> package,
>> There is R-core, R-java R-devel and R. If you yum/dnf install R you get
>> all of
>> them and you can install either one independently.
>>
>> So in this case, we could have git-core, git-perl, git-foo and yum/dnf
>> install git
>> would provides the full experience, while the atomic folks rely on
>> git-core
>> instead.
>>
>> Would this work?
>>
>>
>> Pierre
>
> Thank you Pierre, that sounds reasonably. We could create packages
> *git-core* & *git-perl* sub-packages and both required inside original *git*
> package.
> So user will be able to use still same functionality as usually without
> troubles, even after upgrade (doesn't count upstream changes).
> And Atomic will use *git-core* package. Are you OK with this solution Colin?

This is somewhat funny, since we already _had_ git-core long ago for
this very reason, and it was consolidated into a single git package.
History repeats itself.

josh