Re: Installation experiences
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 02:15:22PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
> > The comments in the cross-install script were unclear about which
> > perl packages are needed. I then decided to download just
> > perl-base, since it was so much smaller. Apparently this was the
> > wrong choice, as install-info needed ENOENT from POSIX.pm which
> > was not included. I was able to hack around that, but couldn't
> > POSIX.pm be moved to perl-base?
>
> I will clarify the comment.
>
> # perl-base_5.00404, perl
>
> really means you need both, perl and perl-base.
>
> POSIX.pm will _not_ be moved to perl-base, because the whole idea of
> perl-base is to have a small minimal perl which fits on the boot disk.
> The right solution is to fix install-info and dpkg-divert (IIRC) not to need
> ENOENT at all. Patches are welcome (not just hacks, we need to make IanJ
> happy).
Why can't we hard-code the value of ENOENT? We know what it's going to be
- our install disks will only ever run with the version of glibc which is
on them.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: