Re: Today I played with dh-make-perl...
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> -=| Gunnar Wolf, 8.08.2007 00:57 |=-
> > I managed to remove its reliance on hand-written information regarding
> > its core module list - and BTW added a run-time switch to specify
> > which packages should be considered as base (currently, they are perl,
> > perl-base and perl-modules - Now, I might be very mistaken in my
> > assumption, thinking about this, as only perl-base is essential,
> > although they are all _build_-essential)...
> As perl-modules is is essential to dh-make-perl's proper work,
> shouldn't it be listed as a dependency?
No. A dependency on perl is sufficient (and correct) as it pulls in
perl-base and perl-modules itself. [Perl modules must have a versioned
dependency on one of perl or perl-base; the former is correct in all
but unusual circumstances.]
> Why omitting dependencies on modules that are in non-essential perl
> and perl-modules? IMHO, if newly generated package uses modules from
> these, a dependency is due. And adding command-line option simply to
> be able to say that perl is essential is an overkill for me :)
A dependency is incorrect for most of these (unless they require a
version of the module newer than what is in perl-modules) because
they're intrinsically part of the core perl distribution (and a lot of
these modules never existed as separate packages anyway.)
A Democracy lead by politicians and political parties, fails.