Re: Depending only on perl-base instead of perl
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 12:28:58AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>What do you all think about suggesting that packages which only need
>perl-base to function depending only on perl-base, not perl?
See my comments in <20050829230504.GC13085@londo.c47.org>.
Perl was never intended by upstream to be diced up like we've done in
Debian. Each major upstream release requires tinkering to get perl-base
working again due to new inter-module dependencies, and implicit module
perl-base is a hack which is intended to solve a specific, *small*
problem set, not a general purpose package.
I believe that policy should remain exactly as-is: unless you've a
darned good reason to depend on perl-base rather than perl, don't.
Requirements such as you state may certainly be handled on a
case-by-case basis, but I disagree with making a general recommendation
to depend on perl-base rather than perl where possible.
 "Installing perl when I don't use it takes up valuable disk space
that I need for pr0n" is not a good reason.