On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 14:26:09 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Hmm, I am getting doubts again...
Let's see ... > Niko's declaration, with Gregor's correction, is this: > > Build-Depends: perl (>= 5.17.1~) | libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000), > libmodule-build-perl > > That declaration relies on the assumption that any system with a new > enough perl will also have a new enough libmodule-build-perl - either > provided by perl(-modules) or standalone. Is that safe to assume? Good question. I think it is safe now [0], as we have: perl-module 5.20.0-1 Breaks: libmodule-build-perl (<< 0.420500) and no Provides, so the single 'libmodule-build-perl' can only be the real package, and must be >= 0.420500. For a future perl-modules 5.22, if the Breaks is kept, everything should be fine. If the Breaks is dropped there is indeed a loophole (for versions >= 0.420500), if I'm seeing this correctly. > I believe this more strict declaration covers that cornercase: > > Build-Depends: perl (>= 5.17.1~) | libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000), > libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000) | perl (<< 5.21~) (I guess I'd still go for a plain 'libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000)'. If only to save us all from further headaches :)) Cheers, gregor [0] besides that fact that the (depracated) M::B is still included -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: George Harrison: I Remember Jeep
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
