Re: Debian-Perl-Policy and .packlist?
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:36:16PM +0100, Michael Lamertz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:11:56PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Don't .packlist files get added to if another module is installed in the
> > same subdirectory? It's been a while since I looked at them, but that
> > would make it incompatable with our packaging system. You'll probably
> > have better luck with this question on debian-perl, so I am ccing there.
>
> Except for core packages, that shouldn't happen, since packages install
> in their own namespace.
No, not just core packages (by which I assume you mean the usual Perl
meaning of "stuff that's been borged^H^H^H^H^H^Hincluded in the core
Perl distribution"). For instance, /usr/share/perl5/LWP.pm is part of
libwww-perl.
> But the Simple.pm actually sits one directory above this. But even
> then, I'm not sure if it's goot policy to undermine a perfectly working
> established method without thought. A method do register or unregister
> modules in the post-install/pre-remove parts of a package would make
> much more sense.
If we start requiring .packlists then that would be the only way to do
it, yes. The registration script should be part of our perl (or
perl-base) package and modules will need to update their versioned
dependency on it.
> Josip Rodin suggested on debian-policy that I should file a bug report
> against the package that contains ExtUtils::Installed (perl-modules),
> but I think that's stretching it a bit. The bug's in the policy, not in
> the module which works perfectly well on, ... well, on how many platforms
> does perl run?
ExtUtils::Installed is an interface, and a useful one. It's OK for us to
patch the interface so that its implementation is correct for us.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: