Hi intrigeri, Thanks for the quick reply.
-=| intrigeri, 02.06.2014 12:29:48 +0200 |=-
> I've seen people on the pkg-perl and -devel lists express a strong
> preference for executable .install files, as opposed to introducing
> .install.in files and pre-processing them as the suggested patch does.
> I must say I kinda agree, as it makes the .install files more
> self-contained.
>
> With this in mind, what's your take on #750128? Do you want to propose
> another patch that moves to executable .install files, or is the
> proposed one good enough, and we should apply it as is?
Frankly, I learnt about the executable .install feature from the
thread you cite :) I like the feature too. Expect a new patch using
that tomorrow at the latest.
Cheers,
dam
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
