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

Re: Perl files in base.



Christian Schwarz wrote:
> 
> For example, we are still looking for a solution with the tetex-*
> postinst script. This script could be made much faster by using a
> simple Perl script that uses the dpkg-perl modules. Unless these
> modules are included in in perl-base we have to include them in
> tetex-* (since "Depends:" are really dangerous here). The modules
> would only be used in the postinst script.

Yes, that's what I also said as an "option". And I think that the place
to put those modules is the debian/tmp/DEBIAN directory from where they
are installed in /var/lib/dpkg/info "before" installation.
This because those perl modules have nothing to share with tetex, thus
should not appear in the .files listing.

But my problem is: how many tetex* packages do we have? How many times
those modules must be duplicate in the system?
Isn't it better and simple make ALL tetex* packages Pre-depends on the
package that installs the module?

Maybe I missed to include this _plainly_ in the policy proposal.
Didn't I?

Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> 
>         No installation script should depend on perl modules not
>         included in perl-base package (or any other package marked
>         Essential, or in which the package pre-depends).
> 
>         If an installation script must absolutely depend on a perl
>         module not included in perl-base or any Essential package or
>         anyone in which it pre-depends, then the maintainer, after
>         discussing on debian-devel, should ask for inclusion of the
>         module in perl-base package, or include it in its DEBIAN
>         directory, and inform its script that the module <modname>
>         is /var/lib/dpkg/info/<pkgname>.<modname> .
> 

Cheers,
fabrizio
-- 
| fpolacco@icenet.fi    fpolacco@debian.org    fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E



Reply to: