-=| Frank Lichtenheld, Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 03:58:11PM +0200 |=- > On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 08:22:49AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:57:42 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > > > > So perl should probably be moved to Build-Depends in these cases. > > > Or am I missing something? > > > > Maybe that perl-base is "Essential: yes"? I don't know the history > > but if the perl interpreter from perl-base is enough for "make clean" > > it should be ok that way. > > Nah, I actually thought about that, too, but as you can see in the > command I qouted (i.e. perl "-MExtUtils::Manifest=fullcheck" -e fullcheck) > it uses ExtUtils::Manifest, which is not in perl-base. Sounds like a lintian check? :) > OTOH perl is indirectly build-essential via dpkg-dev, so it doesn't > really matter, I'm just wondering whether anyone ever actually thought > about that. Well, it would matter if dpkg-dev no longer depends on perl. Highly unlikely to happen soon, I admit -- dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature