Your message dated Sat, 7 Sep 2013 17:10:49 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#721393: perl-modules: please describe which
recommended/suggested packages are used for what
has caused the Debian Bug report #721393,
regarding perl-modules: please describe which recommended/suggested packages
are used for what
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
721393: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=721393
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: perl-modules
Version: 5.18.1-2
Severity: wishlist
Hi.
perl-modules contains quite a few recommended/suggested packages
since 5.18, and I think it would be appropriate to describe why/for what
these are needed/used.
Cause if these were just modules that _might_ be "often" used, it's IMHO
probably more appropriate to not recommend/suggest them generally, but
rather let other packages depend upon them.
Cheers,
Chris.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 08:59:03PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 09:31:48PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:55:29PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> >
> > > This is mostly an implementation detail that users of the package
> > > shouldn't have to worry about too much. Packages should still be
> > > updated to depend on the separate modules. I half thought that we already
> > > had a lintian check warning of these, but we only have one for the
> > > perl4 libraries which were deprecated in the previous cycle. I think
> > > we must have decided that it wasn't necessary for the other types of
> > > deprecations, but I'm not sure why.
> >
> > I don't recall such a decision, but the impact does seem quite limited
> > according to the codesearch.debian.net results in #702096.
> >
> > I think the %deprecate::DEBIAN_PACKAGES hash we added with
> > debian/patches/debian/deprecate-with-apt.diff could be used to implement
> > a generic lintian check that doesn't hardcode the list of deprecated
> > modules. Not sure if we want to commit to that interface though.
>
> Right. And as it turns out I've already filed bugs for some of
> these, eg
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=711680
>
> and will file some more based on my latest rebuild logs.
Now done. I'm closing this bug now as I don't think there's anything more
to do.
Dominic.
--- End Message ---
