On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:41:50PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 12.08.2014 21:15, schrieb Niko Tyni: > > > The perl-base package is Essential:yes, so inclusion there is pretty > > close to a promise of supporting that interface forever inside the > > Essential set. So care must be taken when adding functionality there. > > IMO Perl reimplementations of /usr/bin/find, /usr/bin/basename, > > /bin/mkdir -p, and /bin/rm -r don't seem very good candidates. > > Why not? Can you elaborate?
The Debian Policy defines Essential:yes as the minimal set of functionality that must be available and usable on the system at all times. Adding other implementations of the functionality already present in those separate binaries, just in a different language, goes counter to the "minimal" part IMO. I am somewhat concerned that the needs of a package that seems to have become part of the base system more or less by accident would drive additions in the Essential set. I'm also concerned that the more functionality we add in perl-base, the easier it becomes to drop dependencies on the full perl package from "normal" packages. This will make it more probable that end users encounter systems without the full perl package, which goes counter to Perl upstream's wishes. But yeah, I may be making too big a fuss about just a few modules at 150kB. -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org _______________________________________________ Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list Pkg-systemd-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
