pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] rpm and perl and packaging question

To: Mark Goodwin <mgoodwin@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] rpm and perl and packaging question
From: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:45:29 +1000
Cc: PCP Mailing List <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51F76B91.5070306@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <51F767EB.3060008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51F76B91.5070306@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7
On 30/07/13 17:30, Mark Goodwin wrote:

exclude pcp-import-sheet2pcp in the pcp spec, as above.

I'm looking for Plan B here. If RH and friends want to get out of the Perl repackaging business, then they should provide more support for over-riding the default Requires: generation in an rpm build for perl modules.

Advice from rpm gurus would be welcome ...

The hook %{__find_requires} seems encouraging, especially as this expands to /usr/lib/rpm/find-provides which contains this fragment that I suspect is causing the problem ...

# --- Perl modules.
[ -x /usr/lib/rpm/perl.prov ] &&
echo $filelist | tr '[:blank:]' \\n | grep '\.pm$' | /usr/lib/rpm/perl.prov | sort -u


But I cannot find a way to override or redefine %{__find_requires}. Examples from googleland are rare, but this suggestion

%define __find_requires %{nil}

does not work (it makes no change to the prereqs in the rpm package). Are there better examples I could use as a starting point?

What about

AutoReqProv: no

Can this be applied to just one package in a spec file?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>