Your message dated Thu, 2 Jun 2011 23:06:26 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#95879: perl-base: contents of @INC
has caused the Debian Bug report #95879,
regarding perl-base: contents of @INC
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.)
--
95879: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=95879
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: perl-base
Version: 5.6.0-21
I'm still not sure I understand the current @INC list (as now defined
in the Perl Policy):
/usr/local/lib/perl/5.6.0 site compiled
/usr/local/share/perl/5.6.0 site arch-indep
/usr/lib/perl5 vendor compiled
/usr/share/perl5 vendor arch-indep
/usr/lib/perl/5.6.0 core compiled
/usr/share/perl/5.6.0 core site-indep
/usr/local/lib/site_perl old site arch-indep
/usr/lib/perl5/5.6/i386-linux old core/vendor compiled
/usr/lib/perl5/5.6 old core/vendor arch-indep
/usr/lib/perl5/5.005/i386-linux old core/vendor arch-indep
. pwd
Questions:
(1) Why is /usr/local/lib/site_perl not immediately after
/usr/local/share/perl/5.6.0 in the list?
(2) Why is there no version-indep arch-indep site directory in place
of the old /usr/local/lib/site_perl, say
/usr/local/share/site_perl or .../perl5?
I think I may have asked the latter question before, but the former is
new.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 11:02:52PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 10:23:06PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > Hi Julian,
> >
> > I'm going over some (very!) old bug reports in perl and came
> > across this thread which never really reached a satisfactory
> > conclusion.
> > [...]
> >
> > I think this is a situation where it impossible to satisfy all
> > concerns at once, and given that the @INC being discussed has effectively
> > survived a decade in Debian, I'm inclined to close this bug now. Please
> > let me know if you still feel strongly that this should be doing
> > something different and I'll leave it open, although it may well
> > acquire a wontfix tag in that instance.
>
> Gosh, if I felt that strongly, I might have commented in the last
> decade :-)
Heh. When you put it like that... :)
> Feel free to close it, as no-one else has made the slightest comment
> on the topic.
Thanks, done.
--
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)
--- End Message ---
