On 21 May 1997, Darren/Torin/Who Ever... wrote:
> 1. Split the main executable and a small set of base files into
> perl-base. This would be Priority: required, should it be Essential?
> There will still be a main Perl package but it would supplement
> perl-base instead of replacing it.[1]
I think perl-base should not be Essential, since it will be replaced
anyway once the installation completes. "perl" should be essential though.
(Or can "essential" packages be replaced by dpkg?)
> 2. The man-pages and html-docs would go into a separate perl-doc
> package.
I agree for the html docs, but I think each manpage should go into the
package containing the feature it documents.
> 5. The Perl package will also become Perl5 at the libc6 upgrade,
> providing Perl. Vincent Renardias has asked if we could have a fully
> versioned package name of Perl5.004. This has merits but leads to
> overly long package names: perl5.004-base and is really inelegant.
> The cases where multiple full releases of Perl need to be installed
> are very rare and so unless there is a hew and a cry it will probably
> just be Perl5.
Not only we already have package names much more ugly than
"perl5.004-base", but I think it may be too bad to miss the opportunity
to solve in advance the "very rare" cases when 2 versions of perl must be
installed.
Cordialement,
--
- ** Linux ** +-------------------+ ** WAW ** -
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | RENARDIAS Vincent | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
- Debian/GNU Linux +-------------------+ http://www.waw.com/ -
- http://www.debian.org/ | WAW (33) 4 91 81 21 45 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
