On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 02:15:22PM +0200, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote: > > The comments in the cross-install script were unclear about which > > perl packages are needed. I then decided to download just > > perl-base, since it was so much smaller. Apparently this was the > > wrong choice, as install-info needed ENOENT from POSIX.pm which > > was not included. I was able to hack around that, but couldn't > > POSIX.pm be moved to perl-base? > > I will clarify the comment. > > # perl-base_5.00404, perl > > really means you need both, perl and perl-base. > > POSIX.pm will _not_ be moved to perl-base, because the whole idea of > perl-base is to have a small minimal perl which fits on the boot disk. > The right solution is to fix install-info and dpkg-divert (IIRC) not to need > ENOENT at all. Patches are welcome (not just hacks, we need to make IanJ > happy).
Why can't we hard-code the value of ENOENT? We know what it's going to be - our install disks will only ever run with the version of glibc which is on them. Jules /----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd | | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TW9 2TF *UK* | +----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \----------------------------------------------------------------------/
