I second or third this or whatever. There is a bit of duplication of
information but both dpkg -L and .packlist are generated automaticly so
who cares.
Probably somebody who knows how to make official policy proposals should
propose this.
Britton Kerin
__
GNU GPL: "The Source will be with you... always."
On 4 Dec 2002, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
>
> Josip> IIRC, the .packlist files contained a list of files shipped
> Josip> with each module. dpkg -L already provides such information for
> Josip> packages.
>
> Michael> Actually, the packlist keeps track of what has been installed
> Michael> by Perl's build system - and ExtUtils::Installed is the
> Michael> official perl tool of choice to query that information.
>
> Michael> Falling back to calling 'dpkg -l' means calling an external
> Michael> program and hardwiring a perfectly system independend script
> Michael> to a Debian distro (not that I'd mind that much, but
> Michael> still...).
>
> Josip> How about filing a bug against the Debian package that includes
> Josip> ExtUtils::Installed asking for it not to use information in
> Josip> dpkg database on Debian systems, instead of the (nonexistent)
> Josip> .packlist information?
>
> At the very least, you'd need to (potentially) use _both_. Using only
> the debian package info would break asking about locally installed
> modules. Are such complications worth it? I think not. I agree with
> Michael, the .packlist files should be included.
>
> --
> Ian Zimmerman, Oakland, California, U.S.A.
> if (sizeof(signed) > sizeof(unsigned) + 4) { delete this; }
> GPG: 433BA087 9C0F 194F 203A 63F7 B1B8 6E5A 8CA3 27DB 433B A087
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
