Re: apt-get? non stable debs?
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 02:03:02PM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> I'd hardly call it luck. The problem with perl is that, since it's part
> of the base system it is not listed as a dependency by many of the
> programs that need it. And since the woody/sid perl is not entirely
> backward compatible with potato's, you lose.
>
> If perl was removed from the base system, and packages were forced to
> explicitly depend on it, then this problem could be fixed since packages
> could depend on a specific perl version.
Packages can and do depend on specific perl versions. However, they
cannot tell in advance whether *future* versions of perl will break
them. In theory this ought to be handled by perl-base declaring
conflicts on things it breaks; in practice it usually ends up being
handled by those packages being updated for whatever minor thing changed
in the new perl, hence breaking partial upgrades.
This situation would not be improved a jot by removing perl-base from
'Essential: yes'. Non-base packages are encouraged to depend on perl
rather than relying on perl-base anyway.
> Then set your Mail-Followup-To header, which my mailer respects. Since
> you don't do that, I have no way of knowing where you want your replies
> sent and can make no assumptions.
A good default in the absence of this header is not to send a copy,
especially when somebody is already following up to a post on the
mailing list and can therefore be reasonably assumed to be subscribed.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: