Hi, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > gregor herrmann <gre...@debian.org> (2017-06-28): > > So the only remaining code change is actually: > > > > #v+ > > --- a/debian/zembperl.load.in > > +++ b/debian/zembperl.load.in > > @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ > > # The sucky "zembperl" name is so we load after perl > > > > -# Depends: perl > > +# Recommends: perl > > > > <IfModule mod_perl.c> > > LoadModule embperl_module @ARCHLIB@/auto/Embperl/Embperl.so > > #v- > > > > > > I've now tentatively changed d/changelog to say > > > > #v+ > > * Change hard dependency on mod_perl in zembperl.load to Recommends. > > mod_perl is not required, and is enabled by default anyway if it is > > installed. > > This change matches the package dependencies and fixes an installation > > failure when libapache2-mod-perl2 is not installed. > > (Closes: #810655) > > #v- > > > > > > Does this make sense? > > I think the situation is clearer with your explanations above, and the > changes+changelog look in sync and reasonable.
*nod* Looks fine to me, too.
> > I'm attaching the full new debdiff, and I'm looping in Axel for a sanity
> > check.
>
> I won't be tagging this bug report with +confirmed right away, since we're
> awaiting for some more feedback, but the proposed changes look good to me.
No objections from my side. I only vaguely remember the case back
then, but I do remember that there were issues if mod_perl wasn't
installed despite Embperl can be used without, e.g. as CGI.
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
