On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:00:20 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > (sorry for the delay and thanks for looking at this!) (no problem!) > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 05:25:02PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 19:58:31 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 05:53:28PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > > I've tried this for libcommon-sense-perl now, with the idea taken from dh_perl(1): > > > Looks OK to me. The PERL_CURRENT + PERL_NEXT stuff probably isn't > > > needed anymore. > > I have to admit that I'm still a bit confused by this question. > Thanks for persevering. I didn't think this through. A dependency on > perlapi-* is not the same as 'depend on this Perl upstream version'. > Where the latter is needed (as in for instance for libdevel-cover-perl, > which spits out warnings with minor version skew, (#562214), the > PERL_CURRENT + PERL_NEXT stuff is still necessary. Excellent, then we are in the same state of (un)confusion again :) > In the case of libcommon-sense-perl, it's probably overkill but > doesn't hurt much. Quoting myself in #722332: > > Not sure if all the internals that common::sense fiddles with are under > the 'no ABI changes in minor Perl version updates' promise. I suspect they > are, but we might still be best off rebuilding it even for minor updates. > > which translates to 'perlapi-* might not be enough'. Right, this was more "erring on the safe side". > > If a 5.20.1 upload will only provide perlapi-5.20.1 then we indeed > > don't need the additional version constraints; but this also means > > a transition with several hundred binNMUs for each minor perl > > release, if I'm not mistaken. (Not the issue here but I was > > wondering ...) > Right. If 5.20.0 gets in sid, future 5.20.1 packages are expected to > provide both perlapi-5.20.0 and perlapi-5.20.1 unless something very > disruptive happens. (If 5.20.1 is the first to make it into sid, we'll > probably just skip perlapi-5.20.0.) Ah, ok. So like it was before, good. > > On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 19:58:31 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > > > FWIW I think eventually dh_perl should be changed, possibly with > > > something like the attached patch (which I haven't found the > > > time to test properly yet.) > > Yay! That would be much better than messing around in debian/rules > > manually. > > (Not tested but it looks good.) > Thanks for the eyeballs. Now filed as #751684. Testing would be welcome. > If anybody finds the tuits for that, please follow up in the bug. I'm testing it now, expect a mail to #751684 soon :) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Dire Straits: Love Over Gold
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature