Bug#83977: PROPOSED] include Perl Policy
Hi,
What is the rationale for requiring packages *not* to declare
a dependency on previous versions of perl? If I have a perl script
that depends on perl5.005, but fails for 5.6, why _can't_ I just say
so in the depends?
1.3. Module Path Can you give either the default location, or
example locations subject to change for the module paths? It would be
nice if we knew what the policy meant when it says <site> (current)
and <site> (old). (I know some of these are expanded later in the
document (site new and site old still aren't), but it would make the
doument easier to read if the questions were answered early).
In the 1.4. Documentation section, it says
for programs with the suffix `.1',
programs very rarely do have a .1 suffix. I think you mean
Those commands that can be executed by the user from within a
shell.
and
Library calls
3.4.1. Architecture-Independent Modules. perl-base should be
essential, and thus require no dependency. Packages only need
declare a dependency if they use something in perl that is not
provided by perl-base. The same goes for 3.4.2. Binary Modules.
The only reason to depend on perl-base is for a versioned depends
(like you script uses nothihg special outside of perl-base, but
does contain a use/require statement).
manoj
--
Deja vu: French., already seen; unoriginal; trite. Psychol., The
illusion of having previously experienced something actually being
encountered for the first time. Psychol., The illusion of having
previously experienced something actually being encountered for the
first time.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: