[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: perl-5.005 on slink?



On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 07:37:45AM +0200, Johann Spies wrote
> After the discussion on upgrading from slink to potato using apt-get
> source I decided to try it.  I could not use apt-get for a long time
> now because it complained about the absence of perl-5.005 required by
> postgresql 6.5.2 which I installed by compiling the debian sources and
> dpkg. So I decided to try and install perl-5.005 on slink using
> apt-get source.
> 
> It did not work.  The compilation process complained about
> inconsistent variable definitions from /usr/include/gnus/types.h and
                                                      ^^^^?
> /usr/include/bits/types.h.
> 
> I then tried to determine whether one of them was not supposed to be
> there.  My system was at one stage a bit messy.  I could not find
> /usr/include/bits/types.h in the Contents-file of both Potato or Slink
> so I was stupid enough to remove it.

I'm not sure why you can't build perl-5.005 - I did it on slink a week or
two ago.  You may need a newer version of debhelper, but it sounds like you
aren't getting far enough for that to be an issue.  If you do succeed in
building perl-5.005, installing it on slink 'as is' presents some problems - 
the organisation of /usr/lib/perl5 has changed, and Slink packages that
install stuff in there (e.g., libfoo-perl) will not work with a 'standard'
perl-5.005 unless you re-build them also.

An alternative is to re-build postgresql 6.5.2 editing debian/control to
change references to "perl5" to read "perl (>=5.004)", as I'm not aware
of anything in perl 5.005 that Postgresql would need that isn't also in
perl 5.004.  If you do so, it may be best to also add an entry to
debian/changelog do that the Postgresql package looks older than the Potato 
version, for when you upgrade to Potato proper.


John P.
-- 
huiac@camtech.net.au
john@huiac.apana.org.au
"Oh - I - you know - my job is to fear everything." - Bill Gates in Denmark


Reply to: