On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 02:17:51PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 10:27:44AM +0000, Andrew Beverley wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-12-30 at 11:47 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote: > > > > Packages not using the short form dh rules would need to be modified > > > before the patch could be removed. The required steps would be something > > > like > > > 1) change the Perl policy to recommend NO_PACKLIST + NO_PERLLOCAL > > > 2) change debhelper v9 to use them > > > 3) add a lintian check and/or do a mass bug filing for the other packages > > > 4) wait for (most of) the packages to be fixed
> > Incidentally, I have just found this, which could be closed as well if > > the above are completed. > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=683533 > > Right, that's the same issue. Thanks for spotting. > > > > A champion for this (and also for finishing the PREFIX transition) > > > would be very welcome. > > > > Happy to volunteer, but I'm quite new to all of this, so may need a > > little assistance. > > Thanks! Let's wait a bit for other opinions before starting out. Hello, This seems like an entirely sane and sensible idea, FWIW. > I see NO_PERLLOCAL and NO_PACKLIST were added in EU::MM quite recently, > in 2013 (6.75_01, first bundled with Perl 5.19.4.) It clearly makes > sense to make dh and cdbs use those. Whether it's feasible to get the > perl patch removed depends on how many other packages would need changing, > so we'd need an estimate on that. > > A straightforward, if a bit laborious, way to get such an estimate would > be to test rebuild the archive with the perl patch removed, and with > "fixed" dh and cdbs packages, and just diffing the package contents. Dominic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
