Quoting gregor herrmann (2013-04-19 14:40:43) > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:29:58 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > For other situations either libasync-interrupt-perl or libev-perl > > provides speed gain, so arguably the following is best: > > > > Recommends: libasync-interrupt-perl | libasync-interrupt-perl, libev-perl, > > libguard-perl > > Hm? > Did you mean > Recommends: libasync-interrupt-perl | libev-perl, libasync-interrupt-perl > | libguard-perl > ?
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Thanks for reading my mind :-D > Alternatively we could also just add all three to Recommends without > alternatives. Only when EV is _not_ available and used is there a benefit of having Async::Interrupt available. ...but then again, that means for the cases of explicitly using a different backend it is beneficial to have Async::Interrupt available. So yes, I think it is best to plain recommend each of them - even if Async::Interrupt won't actually be _used_ "in most cases". - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org