On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:18:17PM +0100, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Would a new package relationship, say "Post-Depends", be helpful?
No. Too many of our maintainers can't even follow the semantics of the
relationship fields we /already/ have...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lev
On fredagen den 23 oktober 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Currently there is a proposal[0] to combine perl-modules and perl into
> a single package. perl-modules currently contains architecture
> independent bits, and perl contains architecture dependent bits.
>
> FWICT, the primary argument[1] to d
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 05:52:46PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [Don Armstrong]
> > > I actually suggested that perl-modules recommend perl, but that was
> > > rejected for the reason that perl-modules doesn't do anything useful
> > > without perl.
>
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Don Armstrong]
> > I actually suggested that perl-modules recommend perl, but that was
> > rejected for the reason that perl-modules doesn't do anything useful
> > without perl.
>
> You sure?
I'm sure that it was the reason given, but I didn't have
[Don Armstrong]
> I actually suggested that perl-modules recommend perl, but that was
> rejected for the reason that perl-modules doesn't do anything useful
> without perl.
You sure? That surprises me - I would have thought a lot of the
modules in perl-modules only needed perl-base.
--
Peter Sa
James Vega wrote:
>> However, I agree that in almost all cases (including this case) it
>> seems silly for any other package to depend on B or for users to
>> install B directly. I actually suggested that perl-modules recommend
>> perl, but that was rejected for the reason that perl-modules doesn't
James Vega wrote:
[...]
> I don't see how perl-modules is that much different than the various
> arch-independent data packages which provide little to no functionality
> on their own but are required by another arch-dependent package. Many
> of those either Recommend the relevant package or decl
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 03:22:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le vendredi 23 octobre 2009 à 14:25 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > > 3: Specifically, where Package A Depends on (B=1), and Package B
> > > Depends on A; A and B are from the same
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 23 octobre 2009 à 14:25 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> > 3: Specifically, where Package A Depends on (B=1), and Package B
> > Depends on A; A and B are from the same source, B is architecture
> > independent, and does not require configu
Le vendredi 23 octobre 2009 à 14:25 -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
> Because this is a common situtation, where there is architecture
> independent data (of varying sizes) which is interdependent on
> architecture specific code of a particular version, reflexive
> dependencies are necessary.[2]
>
Currently there is a proposal[0] to combine perl-modules and perl into
a single package. perl-modules currently contains architecture
independent bits, and perl contains architecture dependent bits.
FWICT, the primary argument[1] to do this is because perl and
perl-modules both require the other
11 matches
Mail list logo
