Bug 179426

Summary: in perl spec template uneeded Buildrequires perl
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Patrice Dumas <pertusus>
Component: fedora-rpmdevtoolsAssignee: Ville Skyttä <scop>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 4CC: extras-qa
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-01-31 19:24:33 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Patrice Dumas 2006-01-31 10:29:06 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.0.7-1.1.fc4 Firefox/1.0.7

Description of problem:
There is a 
BuildRequires:  perl
but in the guidelines it is said that perl is in the unneeded 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. nothing to reproduce

Additional info:

Comment 1 Ville Skyttä 2006-01-31 19:24:33 UTC
It is unneeded as long as rpm-build and/or redhat-rpm-config pulls in perl,
that's right.  But if it some day suddenly doesn't (which I don't personally
find impossible at all), build of packages without the perl dependency would be
broken.  (Having fedora-rpmdevtools pull in perl doesn't count, the specfiles
should continue to work on systems without it installed too.)

Unless there are really strong opinions about this, I'm going to leave it in
because removing it would be "fixing" something that is not broken.

Comment 2 Patrice Dumas 2006-02-01 16:27:38 UTC
In the review guidelines, not having BR perl is a must, see:


 - MUST: A package must not contain any BuildRequires that are listed in the
exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. 

I find it very troubling to have something that goes against a MUST packaging
item in the fedora spec template. At least a comment should be added? Maybe the
topic should be taken on the fedora-extras list? Or is fedora-rpmdevtools not
fedora specific?

Comment 3 Ville Skyttä 2006-02-01 23:18:59 UTC
If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and start discussion on the
fedora-extras list.  Note that this case is not about fedora-rpmdevtools being
Fedora specific or not per se; it's more about whether the spec template and
packages based on it are.  I'm trying to keep comments to the minimum in the
spec templates and won't add one for this.  If the consensus is that the BR:
perl must go from the spec template, I'll just drop it.  Personally I think that
the above MUST in the case of perl is a bit silly though, but mileages obviously