Perl packaging guidelines

[Petr Šabata]

On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 03:28:52PM +0200, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 02:25:24PM +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > 
> > First, the dependencies, both build- and run-time.
> > Personally I like to list every module which is actually used
> > since this means the package only fails to build when
> > there's an actual issue, not just a change in the dependency
> > chain.
> 
> But that also means that you'll be unnecessarily accumulating
> cruft -- if things build, noone will check if with the next rebase,
> all the listed BuildRequires are actually valid.

We're in that situation already.  See the response to Ralf's post.

> 
> > Second, the %{__perl} macro.
> > What are the benefits of using this (subjectively) ugly macro
> > compared to simple 'perl'?  The only case in which I find it
> 
> Isn't it used for SCL, for example?

I honestly have no idea.  Could someone with some SCL experience
comment on this?

> 
> > Fourth, ExtUtils::MakeMaker vs Module::Build.
> > Module::Build is currently being deprecated and removed from
> > core, ExtUtils::MakeMaker becoming, once again, the preferred
> > way.  Our guidelines should be updated to reflect that.
> 
> So it's basically about putting the text from
> 
> 	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl/Tips?rd=PackagingTips/Perl#Makefile.PL_vs_Build.PL
> 
> to
> 
> 	https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl#Makefile.PL_vs_Build.PL
> 
> as well, right?

Yes, pretty much so.

Petr
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/perl-devel/attachments/20130709/95e1c937/attachment.sig>