Re: "Please drop perl dependency" bugs
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:00:49AM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> -=| Niko Tyni, Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:55:57PM +0200 |=-
> > Package: libfile-basename-perl
> > Depends: perl-base
> > an example of a separate binary package, built from the perl tarball, not
> > needing anything outside perl-base
> From the perl tarball? How would versioning work? I mean, how can one
> produce libfile-basename-perl package version 2.77 from perl 5.10.1
> source package?
With 'dpkg-gencontrol -vversion'. See the gcc-defaults package for
an extensive example.
Source: gcc-defaults (1.96)
> Would it be better to use the real, single-module-at-a-time
> dependencies instead of perl-libs? Maybe not from the beginning (when
> there will be a few single module packages), but at some point in the
> future when the transition develops?
Yeah, not sure where the balance point is. Listing all the .pm files in
the perl tarball as Provides: entries seems too much. Haven't thought
this through yet.
Niko Tyni firstname.lastname@example.org