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

Re: Analysis of dual-lived modules updates on 5.22

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 09:55:16PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> I've gone through the changes to dual-lived module Breaks in perl 5.22,
> and drawn up a list of packages which need attention:

Thanks for your work on this!

> In particular, where the dual-lived packages haven't been in the archive
> since oldoldstable, are we happy to remove the Breaks from the perl
> package? The main benefit is to make perl's debian/control slightly more
> readable. The Provides/Replaces could stay if we wanted.

I think the idea behind keeping the old Breaks/Replaces entries around
and up to date is to (at least rudimentarily) support locally built
separate packages of dual life modules, even when they are no longer in
the Debian archive. This might conceivably benefit derivative distros too.

While it's certainly true that this clutters the control file and grows
apt/dpkg metadata, I think it's probably be worth the (IMO quite low)
maintenance burden. I don't feel very strongly about it, though.

This does raise the argument that we should perhaps do it properly and
systematically add Breaks/Replaces/Provides for all dual life modules,
even when they've never been separately packaged in Debian. I'm not
thrilled about that, as it seems to err on the bloated side. However,
I guess I would consider adding them one at a time if there was a use
case for upgrading them.

Hope that makes sense,
Niko Tyni   ntyni@debian.org

Reply to: