On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 11:36:16PM +0100, Michael Lamertz wrote: > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:11:56PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > > Don't .packlist files get added to if another module is installed in the > > same subdirectory? It's been a while since I looked at them, but that > > would make it incompatable with our packaging system. You'll probably > > have better luck with this question on debian-perl, so I am ccing there. > > Except for core packages, that shouldn't happen, since packages install > in their own namespace.
No, not just core packages (by which I assume you mean the usual Perl meaning of "stuff that's been borged^H^H^H^H^H^Hincluded in the core Perl distribution"). For instance, /usr/share/perl5/LWP.pm is part of libwww-perl. > But the Simple.pm actually sits one directory above this. But even > then, I'm not sure if it's goot policy to undermine a perfectly working > established method without thought. A method do register or unregister > modules in the post-install/pre-remove parts of a package would make > much more sense. If we start requiring .packlists then that would be the only way to do it, yes. The registration script should be part of our perl (or perl-base) package and modules will need to update their versioned dependency on it. > Josip Rodin suggested on debian-policy that I should file a bug report > against the package that contains ExtUtils::Installed (perl-modules), > but I think that's stretching it a bit. The bug's in the policy, not in > the module which works perfectly well on, ... well, on how many platforms > does perl run? ExtUtils::Installed is an interface, and a useful one. It's OK for us to patch the interface so that its implementation is correct for us. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
