Re: Bug#774068: ExtUtils-MakeMaker and NO_PERLLOCAL
- To: debian-perl@lists.debian.org, Andrew Beverley <andy@andybev.com>, 774068@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#774068: ExtUtils-MakeMaker and NO_PERLLOCAL
- From: Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:00:24 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20150120210024.GS20981@urchin.earth.li>
- In-reply-to: <20141230121751.GA27715@estella.local.invalid>
- References: <20141228115217.23861.81346.reportbug@test.default.ctrlo.uk0.bigv.io> <1419770497.26594.64.camel@andy-laptop> <20141228214939.GB23586@jadzia.comodo.priv.at> <1419812174.26594.86.camel@andy-laptop> <20141230083855.GA4375@ktnx.net> <20141230094723.GA7378@estella.local.invalid> <1419935264.3682.24.camel@andy-laptop> <20141230121751.GA27715@estella.local.invalid>
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 02:17:51PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:27:44AM +0000, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-12-30 at 11:47 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
>
> > > Packages not using the short form dh rules would need to be modified
> > > before the patch could be removed. The required steps would be something
> > > like
> > > 1) change the Perl policy to recommend NO_PACKLIST + NO_PERLLOCAL
> > > 2) change debhelper v9 to use them
> > > 3) add a lintian check and/or do a mass bug filing for the other packages
> > > 4) wait for (most of) the packages to be fixed
> > Incidentally, I have just found this, which could be closed as well if
> > the above are completed.
> >
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683533
>
> Right, that's the same issue. Thanks for spotting.
>
> > > A champion for this (and also for finishing the PREFIX transition)
> > > would be very welcome.
> >
> > Happy to volunteer, but I'm quite new to all of this, so may need a
> > little assistance.
>
> Thanks! Let's wait a bit for other opinions before starting out.
Hello,
This seems like an entirely sane and sensible idea, FWIW.
> I see NO_PERLLOCAL and NO_PACKLIST were added in EU::MM quite recently,
> in 2013 (6.75_01, first bundled with Perl 5.19.4.) It clearly makes
> sense to make dh and cdbs use those. Whether it's feasible to get the
> perl patch removed depends on how many other packages would need changing,
> so we'd need an estimate on that.
>
> A straightforward, if a bit laborious, way to get such an estimate would
> be to test rebuild the archive with the perl patch removed, and with
> "fixed" dh and cdbs packages, and just diffing the package contents.
Dominic.
Reply to: