ppisar at redhat.com
Thu Jul 4 13:52:04 UTC 2013
On 2013-07-04, Paul Howarth <paul at city-fan.org> wrote:
> I agree, and alluded to that before. I personally haven't included any
> non-dual-lived modules as buildreqs in my own perl module packages.
> However, from the point of view of consistency and simplicity, it's safe
> to build-require anything that a package "use"s, "require"s etc., i.e.
> it's harmless to add them, and the omission of core module buildreqs has
> caused problems in the past, e.g. when Data::Dumper and Digest::MD5 were
> sub-packaged. So I wouldn't be averse to a guideline that said to
> include all of them, even if they were implemented in the interpreter,
> as that's easier to understand and check than a potentially long list of
> pragmas and other exceptions.
I agree with Paul. I also used to omit non-dual-living (CPAN or Fedora)
packages but then I figured out that it's easier and less error-prone to
declare all dependencies than to `maintain' a list of modules that will
I'm not a friend of verbose guidelines especially if upper (global
Fedora) guidelines already define the best practices (specify all
However I can see the Perl guidelines are quite out-dated a they would
desire an update. And if it helps to guide packagers, then we can compose
new Perl guidelines.
More information about the packaging