[Bug 235954] Review Request: perl-Test-use-ok - Alternative to Test::More::use_ok

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: perl-Test-use-ok - Alternative to Test::More::use_ok
Alias: perl-Test-use-ok

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235954





------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de  2007-04-10 23:44 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Missing:
> > 
> > BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
> > BR: perl(Test::More)
> > BR: perl(Test::Harness)
> 
> So updated (thanks for the catch).  Are we at the point now where we should
> expect to list all module dependencies, including code?  (e.g., not just
> ExtUtils::MakeMaker).
Well, the list above is the result of testing the latest perl packaging (as
discussed on perl-devel-list@), which has several modules formerly contained in
"perl" split out. I don't know about RH's plans nor whether or when we're going
to see this split perl package in Fedora.

A side-effect of this split-out is building perl-modules having to explictly BR:
those "now/soon to be split-out" modules formerly having been in "perl" they
actually use when building. In most cases this is "ExtUtils::MakeMaker", but ins
some cases, it is more - This package is one of those case.

More generally: Blindly adding "BR: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)" isn't the
solution. One has to track down these modules individually. Fortunately, most
package bomb out with build-failures pretty hard in a buildsystems carrying the
"split perl" package.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.