On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:58:11 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > Maybe that perl-base is "Essential: yes"? I don't know the history > > but if the perl interpreter from perl-base is enough for "make clean" > > it should be ok that way. > Nah, I actually thought about that, too, but as you can see in the > command I qouted (i.e. perl "-MExtUtils::Manifest=fullcheck" -e fullcheck) > it uses ExtUtils::Manifest, which is not in perl-base. Oh, right. I guess I shouldn't write technical mails in the morning. > OTOH perl is indirectly build-essential via dpkg-dev, so it doesn't > really matter, I'm just wondering whether anyone ever actually thought > about that. At least I haven't, so thanks for the hint! Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian gnu/linux user, admin & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Sonstiges: Should auld aquaintaince be forgot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature