Bug#83977: PROPOSED] include Perl Policy
>>"Brendan" == Brendan O'Dea <bod@debian.org> writes:
Brendan> On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 01:10:54PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 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?
Brendan> Because such packages don't include the paths for packaged debian
Brendan> modules, so you can't say "Depends: perl-5.005, libfoo-perl".
Sure. So I can't depend on the modules for older perl package;
but surely I can do so for the older perl binary itself? I still have
some perl4 scripts lying around, BTW, that do not need any libraries,
but won't work on the perl5 binary. I suspect such breakage may
recur with perl6. Indeed, as long as the dependence is on just the
perl binary, any such dependencies should be legal.
Brendan> The rationale for excluding these paths is those modules are
Brendan> only guaranteed to work for the current perl. Perl-only
Brendan> modules *may* work if they don't use features that
Brendan> perl-5.005 doesn't support ("our" for example), but binary
Brendan> modules most definitly won't.
Brendan> I've changed the "must not" to a "should not" however.
I think we should add a footnote with the rationale that older
perl modules may not be available, and say such a dependence is not
recommended. (not a reason for a bug report, but definitely deprecated
practice)
manoj
--
The cow is nothing but a machine which makes grass fit for us people
to eat. -- John McNulty
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: