lintian's view of the world of perl
The latest version of lintian checks for .pm files in /usr/lib/perl5 and
generates a warning if so. This is the result of a bug report filed by
Adam Heath. What the heck? Shouldn't these things first be discussed
_properly_ before filing bug reports and changing tools?
I also don't understand why the lintian maintainer took this bug report
on face value and implemented this check. Is that the new way of doing
things in Debian?
Brendan O'Dea (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 11:06:19PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> >On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> >> Adam Heath (email@example.com) wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Well, then you better start filing bug reports against perl and the Perl Policy
> >> > > (which I'm following by the letter, by the way).
> >> >
> >> > You aren't.
> >> Yes I am. Look at the rules files in all my perl packages.
> >You're module is both binary and perl. Perl policy doesn't document this.
> >This is a bug in perl policy.
> >It's very short sighted that the perl policy doesn't consider this. The
> >obvious thing is to have the files split into separate dirs.
> Don't be a pedantic twat doogie.
> The perl-code side of binary modules depends on bootstrapping the
> correct version of the compiled code.
> As such, those .pm files, which are generally only a thin interface over
> the XS code should go into /usr/lib as they are closely tied to the
> binary code (and different arches may be at different revision levels).
> MakeMaker generally does the right thing.
> If you believe otherwise, stop whining, provide adequate justification
> and file a bug on debian-policy.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
Ardo van Rangelrooij
home email: firstname.lastname@example.org
home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo
GnuPG fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9