Brendan O'Dea ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 11:06:19PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > >On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > > > >> Adam Heath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> > On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote: > >> > > >> > > Well, then you better start filing bug reports against perl and the Perl >Policy > >> > > (which I'm following by the letter, by the way). > >> > > >> > You aren't. > >> > >> Yes I am. Look at the rules files in all my perl packages. > > > >You're module is both binary and perl. Perl policy doesn't document this. > >This is a bug in perl policy. > > > >It's very short sighted that the perl policy doesn't consider this. The > >obvious thing is to have the files split into separate dirs. > > Don't be a pedantic twat doogie. > > The perl-code side of binary modules depends on bootstrapping the > correct version of the compiled code. > > As such, those .pm files, which are generally only a thin interface over > the XS code should go into /usr/lib as they are closely tied to the > binary code (and different arches may be at different revision levels). > > MakeMaker generally does the right thing. > > If you believe otherwise, stop whining, provide adequate justification > and file a bug on debian-policy.
So I can close the bug report filed against libxml-parser-perl (#174593) which started this thread? Thanks, Ardo -- Ardo van Rangelrooij home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] home page: http://people.debian.org/~ardo GnuPG fp: 3B 1F 21 72 00 5C 3A 73 7F 72 DF D9 90 78 47 F9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
