Re: Analysis of dual-lived modules updates on 5.22
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 06:59:48PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> 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,
Yes indeed, and I'm happy with the status quo. In fact I have a feeling
we have discussed this one before...
Dominic.
Reply to: