-=| Niko Tyni, Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 09:52:00AM +0200 |=- > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:00:49AM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > > I mean, how can one produce libfile-basename-perl package version > > 2.77 from perl 5.10.1 source package? > > With 'dpkg-gencontrol -vversion'. See the gcc-defaults package for > an extensive example. > > Package: gcc > Source: gcc-defaults (1.96) > Version: 4:4.4.5-1 Wow, hackery at its best. Thanks for the pointer! > > 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? > > Yeah, not sure where the balance point is. Listing all the .pm files in > the perl tarball as Provides: entries seems too much. Haven't thought > this through yet. As I see it, when a package is split (whether from perl source or from CPAN dist), packages that depend on it should clearly declare the dependency on that package. During the transition it would be OK do depend on 'perl' or 'perl-libs'. In my imagination 'perl' Depends on 'perl-libs' and 'perl-libs' depends on all separate packages that were in core. Not sure if this matches reality.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature