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>
>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
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
3) Some other suggestion that someone comes up with.
I like #1 the best but I'll go along with what's chosen...