Re: Moose v2.0000 upgrade
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:13:38AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:33:16 +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote:
>
> (just a short note, I'm mostly offline this week)
>
> > On Tuesday 12 April 2011 23:21:12 Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> > > What should we do? IMHO these packages should be updated to depend on
> > > libmoose-perl (fortunately some of them already do) and
>
> Or "libmoose-perl (>= 2) | libclass-mop-perl)"; cf. the recent
> libwww-perl changes.
>
> > > libclass-mop-perl
> > > removed from the archive, meanwhile I thought I could add a Provides:
> > > libclass-mop-perl in libmoose-perl, is this correct?
> > I think so. Since Class::Mop might be useful outside of Moose, I think
> > "Provides: libclass-mop-perl" should be kept indefinitely.
>
> Please note that there are no versioned Provides, so maybe providing
> libclass-mop-perl is not so helpful.
We'll at least avoid dependency breakage. Since libmoose-perl is going to
Conflicts: libclass-mop-perl (they install the same files) if e.g.
libfoo-perl depends on both libmoose-perl and libclass-mop-perl, when moose
will be upgraded (and consequently, libclass-mop-perl removed) libfoo-perl
will remain with unsatisfied dependencies... the same applies if e.g.
libfoo-perl depends on libmoose-perl and libbar-perl depends on
libclass-mop-perl. On the contrary if libmoose-perl Provides:
libclass-mop-perl AFAIK there shouldn't be such problems.
Cheers
--
perl -E'$_=q;$/= @{[@_]};and s;\S+;<inidehG ordnasselA>;eg;say~~reverse'
Reply to: