Re: RFS: librpc-xml-perl
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 11:38:35PM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
>lintian has no complains, but linda still insists on perl-dependency,
>which I've refused to put, since perl is essential and versioned perl
>dependency is not required (package requires 5.005 and even oldstable
>has 5.6). There actually is a bug against linda for this (318028) which
>is closed with reasoning that is not clear to me. [...]
The 'perl' package is not essential.
A minimal subset of Perl including the binary /usr/bin/perl is in the
essential package 'perl-base' and is intended to allow maintainer
scripts and the installer to use some Perl.
linda is correct. Policy states that for architecture independant
modules like 'librpc-xml-perl', a dependency on either 'perl' or
'perl-base >= 5.6.0-16' is required. Newer versions of either should be
specified if the module depends on specific versions of core modules.
The reason for the version on the 'perl-base' dependency is due to
changes in @INC introduced in that version; MakeMaker will install your
module into directories which are not searched by earlier Perl packages.
'perl-base' is not intended to provide a general purpose Perl
interpreter. With very few exceptions, if you are packaging Perl
modules, you need a dependency on 'perl'.
--bod
Reply to: