Hi, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 18:33:07 +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote: > > After some discussion on #debian-perl, I've decided to reduce the scope of the > > package split. > > > > App::Cme will be spun of Config::Model upstream (doing the split upstream will > > give more visibility to cme outside of Debian). Which is a really good idea. Many people working in the context of automating debian package management (c.f. debdry) don't know about it, because it's hidden in one of these thousands of lib*-perl packages. > > App::Cme will contain cme and bash_completion files > > Sounds good to me. Yes, please do so! Looking very forward to it! :-) > > On Debian side, cme package will depend on libconfig-model-perl and recommend > > or suggest the packages containing models (like libconfig-model-dpkg-perl). > > I'd go for Recommends for the "important" ones. Yes, especially libconfig-model-dpkg-perl. Dominique Dumont wrote: > > Hm, or maybe even Depends for libconfig-model-dpkg-perl, since that's > > what most packagers will actually need/want when they install/run cme. > > I disagree, packagers are not the only users of cme. For instance, I believe > that lcdproc users will not be happy to see libconfig-model-dpkg-perl > installed on their system (because cme is used during package upgrade). Good point. Recommends seem to fit best then. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE `- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature