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

Re: Proposal of minimal split of libconfig-model-perl


gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 18:33:07 +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> > After some discussion on #debian-perl, I've decided to reduce the scope of the 
> > package split.
> > 
> > App::Cme will be spun of Config::Model upstream (doing the split upstream will 
> > give more visibility to cme outside of Debian).

Which is a really good idea. Many people working in the context of
automating debian package management (c.f. debdry) don't know about
it, because it's hidden in one of these thousands of lib*-perl

> > App::Cme will contain cme and bash_completion files
> Sounds good to me.

Yes, please do so! Looking very forward to it! :-)

> > On Debian side, cme package will depend on libconfig-model-perl and  recommend 
> > or suggest the packages containing models (like libconfig-model-dpkg-perl).
> I'd go for Recommends for the "important" ones.

Yes, especially libconfig-model-dpkg-perl.

Dominique Dumont wrote:
> > Hm, or maybe even Depends for libconfig-model-dpkg-perl, since that's
> > what most packagers will actually need/want when they install/run cme.
> I disagree, packagers are not the only users of cme. For instance, I believe 
> that lcdproc users will not be happy to see libconfig-model-dpkg-perl 
> installed on their system (because cme is used during package upgrade).

Good point. Recommends seem to fit best then.

		Regards, Axel
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: