-=| Niko Tyni, Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:55:57PM +0200 |=- > I'm thinking of something like > > Package: perl-base > (no change from now) > > Package: perl-libs (or whatever) > Depends: perl-base > contains all the standard libraries that aren't in the separate packages > > Package: libfile-basename-perl > Depends: perl-base > an example of a separate binary package, built from the perl tarball, not > needing anything outside perl-base From the perl tarball? How would versioning work? I mean, how can one produce libfile-basename-perl package version 2.77 from perl 5.10.1 source package? > Package: libcgi-pm-perl > Depends: perl-base (or perl-libs if necessary) > an example of a separate package, possibly coming from its own source > package from CPAN and not the perl tarball Would it be better to use the real, single-module-at-a-time dependencies instead of perl-libs? Maybe not from the beginning (when there will be a few single module packages), but at some point in the future when the transition develops? > And I could hopefully dump the maintenance of the separately > packaged dual life modules to the Debian Perl Group :) I think this would make everyone's life easier and stop the ping-pong between DPG, perl maintainers and ftp-masters.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature