A lot of perl packages (at least) use the macro %{_fixpermss}. Defined
in /usr/lib/rpm/macros (from rpm itself), the macro uses chmod. When
reviewing a new package of mine, the reviewer said I should BR
coreutils because of that, which makes sense... although thinking about
it, should a package really need to do that? It kind of feels like rpm
should handle Requires: for anything needed to implement the core set of
macros, and packages should then expect those macrors to "just work".
BRing coreutils for that feels like knowing an implementation detail
that shouldn't be spread across a ton of packages.
Either way, there's probably a need to update pacakges... just looking
at perl SRPMS in rawhide, there's a big split between packages with a
BR: coreutils and not. A quick look finds:
- 1726 perl-* packages that BR coreutils
- 1227 perl-* packages that do NOT BR coreutils but use %{_fixperms)
- 134 perl-* packages that do NOT BR coreutils, also do NOT use %{_fixperms}
I'd bet the bulk of the 1726 that do BR coreutils are fox %{_fixperms}
and could drop it, or the 1227 that don't BR coreutils should be updated
to do so.
I don't know how common %{_fixperms} use is outside of perl packages.
Thoughts?
--
Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx>
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
