Created attachment 527333 [details]
Filter perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)

Patch tested to work with this scratch build for dist-f16
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3420279
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3420279&name=build.log

(In reply to comment #0)

> Additional info:
> # rpm -e perl-devel perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker
> perl-Test-Harness
> perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) is needed by (installed)
> perl-Tk-804.029-3.fc16.x86_64
> So that's the perl module that need to be filtered

I disagree - This would be a mistake.

perl-Tk uses MakeMaker:
# grep -R MakeMaker usr/
usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/Tk/MMutil.pm:use ExtUtils::MakeMaker;

So, rpm is right to add a dependency on perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker). If versions on earlier Fedoras didn't, this would be a bug.

I.e. if this dependency shall be removed, the appropriate step would be to move Tk/MMutil.pm into a subpackage.

Any objections to comment#2 ?

Shouldn't there be any objections to splitting out Tk/MMutil.pm into a subpackage within the next couple of hours, I'll apply a patch implementing this to rawhide and f16, tomorrow.

Only a half-hearted objection - I don't care too much about perl-Tk. 

But Tk::MMutil is nothing more than a Tk-specific EU::MM extension. Nothing explicitly requires or buildrequires it. Only a couple of perl-Tk packages (perl-Tk-ProgressBar-Mac and perl-Tk-TableMatrix) expect it to be there at build time due to BR perl(Tk) - and however you resolve this, both would need to be updated as a result (unless you do nothing, of course).

I think it would be slightly more obvious for builds to fail because EU::MM is missing rather than Tk::MMutil is missing. Pretty much everyone knows what to do if EU::MM is missing at build time (just BR EU::MM). Missing Tk::MMutil could easily lead to "WTF is Tk::MMutil?" <check on CPAN> "WTF? It's part of Tk, and perl-Tk is installed, but Tk::MMutil is missing!!".

Bottom line, yes, perl-Tk should strictly require EU::MM. But for ~99.9% of users, it doesn't actually need to.

(In reply to comment #4)
> Only a half-hearted objection - I don't care too much about perl-Tk. 
> 
> But Tk::MMutil is nothing more than a Tk-specific EU::MM extension. Nothing
> explicitly requires or buildrequires it.
Right - Minor packaging bugs.

> Only a couple of perl-Tk packages
> (perl-Tk-ProgressBar-Mac and perl-Tk-TableMatrix) expect it to be there at
> build time due to BR perl(Tk)
Thanks for pointing out these 2 packages.

Besides these 2, I haven't found any further packages using perl(Tk/MMutil), yet (But I am still checking).

> - and however you resolve this, both would need
> to be updated as a result (unless you do nothing, of course).
Right - Such packages will be facing FTBS's during the next FTBS round or the next perl mass rebuild. 

> I think it would be slightly more obvious for builds to fail because EU::MM is
> missing rather than Tk::MMutil is missing. Pretty much everyone knows what to
> do if EU::MM is missing at build time (just BR EU::MM). Missing Tk::MMutil
> could easily lead to "WTF is Tk::MMutil?" <check on CPAN> "WTF? It's part of
> Tk, and perl-Tk is installed, but Tk::MMutil is missing!!".
Well, isn't that the usual "devel<->runtime" complaint? Nothing to worry much about, IMO.

> Bottom line, yes, perl-Tk should strictly require EU::MM.
I do not agree. No "mere run-time module" should require EU::MM nor should any of these require perl-devel. In case of perl(Tk), it's only Tk::MMutil which pulls in EU::MM and perl-devel.

That said, to me, splitting out Tk/MMutil, is just an ordinary "devel<->runtime" package split with all the "usual issues" attached.

perl-Tk-ProgressBar-Mac-1.2-9.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tk-ProgressBar-Mac-1.2-9.fc16

perl-Tk-TableMatrix-1.23-12.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tk-TableMatrix-1.23-12.fc16

I am delaying splitting out Tk::MMutil into a perl-Tk-MMutil subpackage, because something else has caught my attention:

perl-Tk contains further modules, I believe to be "devel modules" in particular
Tk/MakeDepend.pm and Tk/install.pm.

Provided this, I am inclined to think it would be better to move Tk/MakeDepend, Tk/install and Tk/MMutil into a perl-Tk-devel sub package, instead of just splitting out Tk/MMutil

Opinions, comments?

perl-Tk-804.029-4.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Tk-804.029-4.fc16

Package perl-Tk-804.029-4.fc16:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing perl-Tk-804.029-4.fc16'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-14700
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

perl-Tk-TableMatrix-1.23-12.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Tk-ProgressBar-Mac-1.2-9.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

perl-Tk-804.029-4.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.