Hi!
I was the original proponent of adding these dependencies to the RPM
packages since I think they greatly improve user experience when setting
up a PCP collector host [1].
On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 06:59 +1100, Ken McDonell wrote:
> On 03/10/15 13:01, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > "Ken McDonell" <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
[...]
> The "fix" was to discover that in the the wonderful world of RPM
> packaging anarchy, SuSE and RedHat have made different choices about
> how to package the LWP:UserAgent ... in suseland you need to install
> perl-libwww-perl in redhatland you need to install perl-LWP-UserAgent.
Actually, on my Fedora 21 machine, the package that provides
'perl(LWP::UserAgent)' is also named 'perl-libwww-perl' (like in SuSE
land):
[tadej@tlinux64 ~]$ rpm -q --whatprovides 'perl(LWP::UserAgent)'
perl-libwww-perl-6.07-1.fc21.noarch
I don't know about SuSE, but in Fedora/Red Hat land, one can use "pure"
Perl requirements and they will be automatically translated to the
proper RPM package names. That's why we've added a dependency on
"perl(LWP::UserAgent)" rather that hardcoding it to "perl-libwww-perl".
[...]
> >> 2. should this sort of dependency really belong in the packaging?
> >> We don't do it at all for dpkg and we cannot do it for tarball, so
> >> this really means the pmda install scripts need to check in the
> >> required Perl modules are present.
> >
> > IMHO definitely yes. Automatic satisfaction of dependencies is just
> > what distro packaging is supposed to accomplish. A run-time check
> is
> > a last-ditch effort to make perl errors more intelligible.
I also strongly agree with Frank here.
[...]
> >> 3. even if this should be in the rpm packaging, should it not (a)
> be
> >> consistent and (b) work without surprises?
> >
> > Sure (though consistent with what?).
>
> We should treat the activemq PMDA the same way, as it uses the
> LWP::UserAgent module, but does not have the dependency in the spec
> files ...
Agreed. And we will probably find many more missing dependencies if we
systematically look through the PMDA's SPEC files.
> I have fixed this in a commit that will flow soon.
Great!
Regards,
Tadej
[1] http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/pcp/2015-September/008229.html
|