Re: perl-5.6-base should conflict with all perl packages that use alternatives
Another idea, if I may interject.
A problem that I have had, and others have had, is that apt-get requires
certain perl modules which must be loaded to handle certain things. Would
it be too much to have these in perl-<version>-base? That way, if install
problems do happen, and /usr/bin/perl gets overwritten with a new version,
then apt will function properly as well.
APT could still provide a version for it's own upgrades, to maintain
compatibility with it's own tree, but since perl is relied on so heavily
by the package management system this would be a good thing(tm).
Even better, perhaps these could be set as symlinks and perl could install
it's own, 'stable' version of them in one outside directory, and apt-get
could install it's own versions somewhere else, updating symlinks as
nessicary? Are these updated often enough to deem this nessicary?
I know this is a bit of an annoyance but it is the package management
system after all.
--
Erik Hollensbe <erik@powells.com>
Programmer, Powells Internet Division
"I respect a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he is wrong."
- Malcolm X
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Brendan O'Dea wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 02:55:42PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> >Brendan O'Dea <bod@debian.org> writes:
> >
> >> I'm currently working on new 5.004 and 5.005 packages without
> >> alternatives, and a new 5.6 which will conflict with the earlier
> >> versions.
> >
> >Are tou going to reorganize perl 5.6 the way you proposed months ago ?
>
> Yes. I intend for the ``perl'' and subsidiary packages to provide the
> current Perl version.
>
> Previous versions (5.004, 5.005 and presumably at some stage 5.6) will
> have a version in the package name.
>
> I hope to upload the lot to a staging area in the next day or so.
>
> Regards,
>
Reply to: