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: