* Petr Šabata [05/08/2013 13:56] :
>
> This could only fail if perl isn't in the PATH (hard to imagine
> unless it's a bug). In all other cases, it should work no
> matter where the binary is located.
I was thinking of :
- build-system tries to find the absolute path for 'perl'
- it finds /bin/p
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 11:58:46AM +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Petr Šabata [08/07/2013 14:25] :
> > 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
> > useful is when we actually re
* Ralf Corsepius [08/07/2013 14:57] :
>
> When perl modules move away, they break building - I.e. these can
> easily be re-added at any time, when necessary.
Waiting until a module build has failed to fix it sucks, imho.
It's one thing to have internal mass rebuilds create FTBFS reports. It's
ano
* Petr Šabata [08/07/2013 14:25] :
>
> 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
> useful is when we actually require the absolute path, e.g. in
> shebang corrections.
The two main cas
On 07/09/2013 09:54 AM, Petr Šabata wrote:
> >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 SC
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
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 02:57:16PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 07/08/2013 02:25 PM, Petr Šabata wrote:
> >Dear list,
> >
> >Following the recent thread on the Packaging list [1], and
> >since those questions arise fairly often during reviews, I
> >think it'd be a good idea to discuss some pos
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
On 07/08/2013 02:25 PM, Petr Šabata wrote:
Dear list,
Following the recent thread on the Packaging list [1], and
since those questions arise fairly often during reviews, I
think it'd be a good idea to discuss some possible updates to
our packaging guidelines.
We all have different opinions on P
Dear list,
Following the recent thread on the Packaging list [1], and
since those questions arise fairly often during reviews, I
think it'd be a good idea to discuss some possible updates to
our packaging guidelines.
We all have different opinions on Perl packaging but I'd like to
find some commo
On 07/27/2010 05:55 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> But I didn't find any wiki page about
> us, only Chris Draft
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ChrisWeyl/PerlDraft#Fedora_Perl_SIG_Mission
> Do we have something better?
FYI we have https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Perl
I've updated few information.
* Ralf Corsepius [28/07/2010 07:25] :
>
> Please no.
+1
Having a single address where everything perl related gets sent to is a
valuable asset. I'ld rather we not lose that.
Emmanuel
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@
On 07/27/2010 06:49 PM, Iain Arnell wrote:
> Maybe we should also consider splitting perl-sig mailing list into
> separate perl-sig-bug-and-cvs-spam and a real discussion list.
Please no.
a) We already have way too many lists in Fedora.
b) perl-sig members already receive many duplicate mails fr
2010/7/27 Marcela Mašláňová :
> On 07/27/2010 08:50 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
>> 2010/7/23 Marcela Mašláňová :
>>> Hello,
>>> I'd like to sent Draft for packaging guidelines for review. There were
>>> added some changes a long time ago and it would be nice to have it
>>> official. If there won't be a
On 27/07/10 07:50, Iain Arnell wrote:
> Since we no longer have perl version numbers in @INC, I think the
> whole "Directory Ownership" section should be updated to reflect the
> current situation. With a few simple examples. Maybe something like:
>
> In general, perl's hierarchical naming conventi
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 03:46:25PM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>
> The draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDraft:Perl
>
> It would be great to have a review from someone who has English as first
> language.
>
What about perl module versioning? There is well-known schism in CPAN
(f
2010/7/23 Marcela Mašláňová :
> Hello,
> I'd like to sent Draft for packaging guidelines for review. There were
> added some changes a long time ago and it would be nice to have it
> official. If there won't be any comments, I'll sent it at the end of
> next week to comitee.
>
> The draft: https://
Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> Hello,
> I'd like to sent Draft for packaging guidelines for review. There were
> added some changes a long time ago and it would be nice to have it
> official. If there won't be any comments, I'll sent it at the end of
> next week to comitee.
>
> The draft: https://fedo
Hello,
I'd like to sent Draft for packaging guidelines for review. There were
added some changes a long time ago and it would be nice to have it
official. If there won't be any comments, I'll sent it at the end of
next week to comitee.
The draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDraft:Perl
19 matches
Mail list logo
