On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 11:57:39AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Tue, 06 Sep 2011, Michael Tautschnig wrote: > > > The problem is that perl and perl-modules really are one package that was > > > split apart solely to get the (large) architecture-independent parts into > > > an arch: all package. > > > > Wouldn't this problem be solved by moving the contents of perl to, e.g., > > perl-bin, making perl a dummy package, and the following relations: > > [- - -] > > But this solution seems so simple that I must be missing something. > > You miss the fact that installing perl-bin alone can also break > stuff trying to use what's in that package if perl-modules is not > installed. > > That said with such a setup, it's unlikely to happen given that > most dependencies point to "perl" which enforces the presence of > both packages. And even the bogus dependency on perl-modules does > the right thing. > > So it's certainly better than switching perl-modules's Depends to a > Recommends.
Would one of the following work? 1. Merge perl and perl-modules. Some waste across architectures in the archive, but not horribly much. 2. Drop the Depends on perl from perl-modules, move all of perl-modules's Provides to perl, and make it an RC bug to depend on perl-modules. Add a lintian check for it, and have ftp-master automatically reject any uploads that trigger the warning. -- Freedom-based blog/wiki/web hosting: http://www.branchable.com/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
