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

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: