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

Re: Perl issues

On 21 May 1997, Darren/Torin/Who Ever... wrote:

> 1. Split the main executable and a small set of base files into
>    perl-base.  This would be Priority: required, should it be Essential?
>    There will still be a main Perl package but it would supplement
>    perl-base instead of replacing it.[1]

I think perl-base should not be Essential, since it will be replaced 
anyway once the installation completes. "perl" should be essential though.
(Or can "essential" packages be replaced by dpkg?)

> 2. The man-pages and html-docs would go into a separate perl-doc
>    package.

I agree for the html docs, but I think each manpage should go into the 
package containing the feature it documents.

> 5. The Perl package will also become Perl5 at the libc6 upgrade,
>    providing Perl.  Vincent Renardias has asked if we could have a fully
>    versioned package name of Perl5.004.  This has merits but leads to
>    overly long package names: perl5.004-base and is really inelegant.
>    The cases where multiple full releases of Perl need to be installed
>    are very rare and so unless there is a hew and a cry it will probably
>    just be Perl5.

Not only we already have package names much more ugly than 
"perl5.004-base", but I think it may be too bad to miss the opportunity 
to solve in advance the "very rare" cases when 2 versions of perl must be 


-     ** Linux **         +-------------------+             ** WAW **     -
-  vincent@debian.org     | RENARDIAS Vincent |          vincent@waw.com  -
-  Debian/GNU Linux       +-------------------+      http://www.waw.com/  -
-  http://www.debian.org/           |            WAW  (33) 4 91 81 21 45  -

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: