James Vega wrote: >> However, I agree that in almost all cases (including this case) it >> seems silly for any other package to depend on B or for users to >> install B directly. I actually suggested that perl-modules recommend >> perl, but that was rejected for the reason that perl-modules doesn't >> do anything useful without perl. > > I don't see how perl-modules is that much different than the various > arch-independent data packages which provide little to no functionality > on their own but are required by another arch-dependent package. Many > of those either Recommend the relevant package or declare no > relationship at all. > 'perl-modules', unlike usual binary/data split, contain executable code that depends on executable code from 'perl', so it is not another foo-data package.
-- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
