On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 01:10:54PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > What is the rationale for requiring packages *not* to declare > a dependency on previous versions of perl? If I have a perl script > that depends on perl5.005, but fails for 5.6, why _can't_ I just say > so in the depends?
Because such packages don't include the paths for packaged debian
modules, so you can't say "Depends: perl-5.005, libfoo-perl".
The rationale for excluding these paths is those modules are only
guaranteed to work for the current perl. Perl-only modules *may* work
if they don't use features that perl-5.005 doesn't support ("our" for
example), but binary modules most definitly won't.
I've changed the "must not" to a "should not" however.
> 1.3. Module Path Can you give either the default location, or
> example locations subject to change for the module paths? [...]
Done.
> In the 1.4. Documentation section, it says
> for programs with the suffix `.1',
Re-worded.
> 3.4.1. Architecture-Independent Modules. perl-base should be
> essential, and thus require no dependency. [...]
Done.
Updated version at http://people.debian.org/~bod/perl/perl-policy.sgml,
diff attached.
Regards,
--
Brendan O'Dea bod@compusol.com.au
Compusol Pty. Limited (NSW, Australia) +61 2 9810 3633
perl-policy.sgml.diff.gz
Description: Binary data
