[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#621062: libwww-perl: Please move the remaining modules to a new liblwp-perl



tag 621062 +wontfix
thanks

Adrian,
	I think you do us an injustice here.

First of all it is true that HTML::Form and HTTP::Daemon are not required by any of the LWP modules. In recognition of this we did not include dependencies on libhttp-daemon-perl and libhtml-form-perl. Those packages are however recommendations and you may wish to turn off the automatic installation of recommendations to stop bringing those in.

However the others are all required as far as we can see. If we have made a mistake on that, please let us know the specifics and we will consider downgrading it to a recommendation.

There is a slight complication with LWP::Protocol::https. As of 6.02 that is not strictly required by libwww-perl. We held back from upgrading to 6.02 because that amount of change introduced circular dependencies and considerable complexity and risk. When it is split off we are minded to maintain a full dependency because that module might be required with *NO* *explicit* dependency documented in the code.In short breaking that dependency might break secure code in unpredictable ways.

This transition has already taken a fair amount effort. We have had to raise about twenty bug reports due to the change in provided modules. Renaming a package would cause more unnecessary confusion.

Nicholas

On 06/04/11 08:47, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Package: libwww-perl
Version: 6.01-2
Severity: wishlist

After the current splitup, it is impossible for a package to depend on
only the modules in libwww-perl without pulling in all the others.

Please move these modules to a new package (e.g. named liblwp-perl) so
that other packages can depend on exactly what they need.

Thanks



_______________________________________________
pkg-perl-maintainers mailing list
pkg-perl-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-perl-maintainers



Reply to: