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
pgpaBablHtG3Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
