FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-04-2008, 09:04 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default perl-devel package

Kenneth Porter wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:29 AM +0300 Manuel Wolfshant
<wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:



Wrong approach. Apply Johnny's advice. Or be polite and modify the spec
to distinguish between building on fedora >=7 or on Centos (RHEL).
Something along the following line should do:

%if 0%{?fedora} > 6
BuildRequires perl-devel
%else
BuildRequires perl
%endif


I supplied this as a proposed patch to Rawhide and was told that:


Raw Hide spec files are not designed to be built on any distro other than
Raw Hide; you need to fork the spec and keep distro-specific hacks in the
fork.


<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457334>


yea, we know ... hence the centos project is supporting rpmrepo and not epel

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-04-2008, 09:24 PM
"Stephen John Smoogen"
 
Default perl-devel package

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org> wrote:
> Kenneth Porter wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:29 AM +0300 Manuel Wolfshant
>> <wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>>
>>> Wrong approach. Apply Johnny's advice. Or be polite and modify the spec
>>> to distinguish between building on fedora >=7 or on Centos (RHEL).
>>> Something along the following line should do:
>>>
>>> %if 0%{?fedora} > 6
>>> BuildRequires perl-devel
>>> %else
>>> BuildRequires perl
>>> %endif
>>
>> I supplied this as a proposed patch to Rawhide and was told that:
>>
>>> Raw Hide spec files are not designed to be built on any distro other than
>>> Raw Hide; you need to fork the spec and keep distro-specific hacks in the
>>> fork.
>>
>> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457334>
>
> yea, we know ... hence the centos project is supporting rpmrepo and not epel
>

I don't see how this has anything to do with EPEL. Subversion and perl
are core EL product not EPEL.



--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-04-2008, 09:28 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default perl-devel package

Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org> wrote:

Kenneth Porter wrote:

On Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:29 AM +0300 Manuel Wolfshant
<wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:


Wrong approach. Apply Johnny's advice. Or be polite and modify the spec
to distinguish between building on fedora >=7 or on Centos (RHEL).
Something along the following line should do:

%if 0%{?fedora} > 6
BuildRequires perl-devel
%else
BuildRequires perl
%endif

I supplied this as a proposed patch to Rawhide and was told that:


Raw Hide spec files are not designed to be built on any distro other than
Raw Hide; you need to fork the spec and keep distro-specific hacks in the
fork.

<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457334>

yea, we know ... hence the centos project is supporting rpmrepo and not epel



I don't see how this has anything to do with EPEL. Subversion and perl
are core EL product not EPEL.



The specific issue does not ... the concept does (we do things our way
only). But that is not really relevant and I do not want to start a
flame thread with 1000 posts, so I take back my criticism.



_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-04-2008, 09:44 PM
Jeroen van Meeuwen
 
Default perl-devel package

Kenneth Porter wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:29 AM +0300 Manuel Wolfshant
<wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:



Wrong approach. Apply Johnny's advice. Or be polite and modify the spec
to distinguish between building on fedora >=7 or on Centos (RHEL).
Something along the following line should do:

%if 0%{?fedora} > 6
BuildRequires perl-devel
%else
BuildRequires perl
%endif


I supplied this as a proposed patch to Rawhide and was told that:


Raw Hide spec files are not designed to be built on any distro other than
Raw Hide; you need to fork the spec and keep distro-specific hacks in the
fork.


<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457334>


Awesome attitude from Mister Joe. I'll take it. Let's get it over with.

-Jeroen
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-04-2008, 09:45 PM
"Stephen John Smoogen"
 
Default perl-devel package

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org> wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kenneth Porter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:29 AM +0300 Manuel Wolfshant
>>>> <wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wrong approach. Apply Johnny's advice. Or be polite and modify the spec
>>>>> to distinguish between building on fedora >=7 or on Centos (RHEL).
>>>>> Something along the following line should do:
>>>>>
>>>>> %if 0%{?fedora} > 6
>>>>> BuildRequires perl-devel
>>>>> %else
>>>>> BuildRequires perl
>>>>> %endif
>>>>
>>>> I supplied this as a proposed patch to Rawhide and was told that:
>>>>
>>>>> Raw Hide spec files are not designed to be built on any distro other
>>>>> than
>>>>> Raw Hide; you need to fork the spec and keep distro-specific hacks in
>>>>> the
>>>>> fork.
>>>>
>>>> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457334>
>>>
>>> yea, we know ... hence the centos project is supporting rpmrepo and not
>>> epel
>>>
>>
>> I don't see how this has anything to do with EPEL. Subversion and perl
>> are core EL product not EPEL.
>>
>
> The specific issue does not ... the concept does (we do things our way
> only). But that is not really relevant and I do not want to start a flame
> thread with 1000 posts, so I take back my criticism.
>

And I will take back my counter-criticism as I don't want a flame war..


--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-04-2008, 09:46 PM
Jeroen van Meeuwen
 
Default perl-devel package

Johnny Hughes wrote:

Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@centos.org> wrote:

Kenneth Porter wrote:

On Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:29 AM +0300 Manuel Wolfshant
<wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:

Wrong approach. Apply Johnny's advice. Or be polite and modify the
spec

to distinguish between building on fedora >=7 or on Centos (RHEL).
Something along the following line should do:

%if 0%{?fedora} > 6
BuildRequires perl-devel
%else
BuildRequires perl
%endif

I supplied this as a proposed patch to Rawhide and was told that:

Raw Hide spec files are not designed to be built on any distro
other than
Raw Hide; you need to fork the spec and keep distro-specific hacks
in the

fork.

<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457334>
yea, we know ... hence the centos project is supporting rpmrepo and
not epel




I don't see how this has anything to do with EPEL. Subversion and perl
are core EL product not EPEL.



The specific issue does not ... the concept does (we do things our way
only). But that is not really relevant and I do not want to start a
flame thread with 1000 posts, so I take back my criticism.




I've reopened the bug and asked Joe if I could maintain the little tiny
patch in the rawhide spec if he wouldn't.


I hope that clarifies the attitude EPEL and Fedora people have.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-04-2008, 10:17 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default perl-devel package

Johnny Hughes wrote:

Kenneth Porter wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2008 12:29 AM +0300 Manuel Wolfshant
<wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:



Wrong approach. Apply Johnny's advice. Or be polite and modify the spec
to distinguish between building on fedora >=7 or on Centos (RHEL).
Something along the following line should do:

%if 0%{?fedora} > 6
BuildRequires perl-devel
%else
BuildRequires perl
%endif


I supplied this as a proposed patch to Rawhide and was told that:

Raw Hide spec files are not designed to be built on any distro other
than
Raw Hide; you need to fork the spec and keep distro-specific hacks in
the

fork.


<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457334>


yea, we know ... hence the centos project is supporting rpmrepo and not
epel


Do they really consider backwards-compatibility to be a distro-specific
hack? Sounds suicidal to me.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com


_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-04-2008, 11:12 PM
Jeroen van Meeuwen
 
Default perl-devel package

Les Mikesell wrote:
Do they really consider backwards-compatibility to be a distro-specific
hack?


3 lines in a spec file? It's maintainable, sustainable and not a very
user unfriendly thing to do.


Sounds suicidal to me.




Funny. Suicide is for mortals.

:/

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-05-2008, 12:32 AM
Axel Thimm
 
Default perl-devel package

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 01:23:05PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> I wanted to install the latest Subversion, version 1.5.1, on CentOS
> 5. [...] I attempted to build it and it failed due to a missing
> "perl-devel" package. Some investigation indicates that somewhere in
> Fedora's history the headers and development utilities in Perl got
> broken out into a separate subpackage. [...]

> This is mostly a heads-up to others that might run into this, but I'm
> wondering what the best way to deal with it is. Should I comment out the
> BuildReq, or create a virtual package that provides perl-devel and
> depends on the existing perl package?

I'd go for the latter. That is how I also deal with
python-devel/python(abi)/python-abi for older CentOSes or xfree86 ->
xorg changes (see the compat package at ATrpms). It is the cleanest
and less maintenance needing solution, as you will not need to touch
the subversion specfile, at least not in this part.

In general I try to package up things for the latest bits of
CentOS/RHEL/etc (which is indeed RawHide, even if it is years before
it shows up as a CentOS release) and try (as much as possible) to keep
the same specfile for elder environments with virtual provides, stub
packages etc.

But a perl-devel stub would be nice for CentOS plus/extras and
certainly for rpmrepo - which should also ship a newer subversion
package in its replacement tagged repos.

BTW did you check Dag's repo for a CentOS packages subversion? I just
did, it doesn't yet carry 1.5.x, but I'm sure if you ask Dag it will
soon do (although I think currently Dag enjoys some well deserved
off-the-net-time).
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 08-05-2008, 12:36 AM
Axel Thimm
 
Default perl-devel package

On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 03:32:21AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
> BTW did you check Dag's repo for a CentOS packages subversion? I just
> did, it doesn't yet carry 1.5.x, but I'm sure if you ask Dag it will
> soon do (although I think currently Dag enjoys some well deserved
> off-the-net-time).

OK, made an you-should-have-read-the-whole-thread-before-you-answer-
fool out of me. I see that Dag already catered for this. Remove that
paragrpah from the protocol, please.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:42 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org