[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Incoming directory status



David, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>perl                  Is package break down acceptable?  I thought some
>                      objected to the way these were done.

I don't know.  On 1 May, Ian J in <m0uENlW-0002ZWC@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>
said:
>Secondly: I don't particularly like the way you've split the packages.
>(a) We need a `perl binary only' (and perhaps the more essential
>library files) package for the base disks.  That has to be marked
>Essential &c.  (b) Can't we then make the rest of the installation a
>little less granular - have only one or perhaps two other packages ?

I then said on 1 May:
>Can you and Bruce and who ever else decide which libraries are
>essential and I'll make this package?  Shall I call it perl-base?
>
>As for having a the 3 (now 4) packages, I configured it that way since
>some people aren't going to want suid or debug perl versions.  I figured
>that installing or not installing a package was the simplist way to do
>this.  I'm open for suggestions as to other methods.  I don't really
>like "ask a question in postinst" method.  Anyway, debug perl is *big*
>(1.1 Meg for the files + copyright).

I haven't heard anything since including what should go into perl-base.
I see three options:
1) Leave the packages split the way they are.  Only 1 complaint isn't
   bad.
2) Put the subsidiary perl packages into the main perl package.  That's
   almost 1.4 Meg additional for stuff the casual perl user doesn't
   need/want.
3) Some other suggestion that someone comes up with.

I like #1 the best but I'll go along with what's chosen...

Darren


Reply to: