Re: Perl Policy interpretation issue (was Re: Bug#174593: libxml-parser-perl contains sharable files in /usr/lib)
Le Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 11:06:19PM -0600, Adam Heath écrivait:
> > 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.
Hum... most "binary modules" have a pure perl layer over them. That
doesn't change their status of "binary modules" imho.
Files should be separated only if they are useful without the other
files ... otherwise it doesn't make sense to separate them and to leave
in a shared dir some modules that don't work if you don't have the
corresponding binary module.
> > Well, that depends on how you define a "module". To me it's the complete tarball
> > from e.g. CPAN. You apparently interpret it as a .pm file
>
> Well, honestly, I don't think in modules. I think in files.
Files do no matter. It's what you can do with those files. The simplest
approximation is "module" = "set of interdependent functionnalities" and
as such they should not be broken without assurance that they are not
so "interdependent".
I think that policy should allow such a split but that it should
advise to NOT split by default because it doesn't hurt much and because
it's the safe way when you don't know all the internals of your module.
> And, besides, there is *no* way your package could *ever* be compliant with
> perl policy. Your package is both XS and arch-indep.
I'd add a paragraph for that in the perl policy stating that a package
that contains both XS and arch-indep files should be classified as
binary module by default but that the files can be split if the two set
of files can be used independently.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Reply to: