On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 11:48:52AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 07:25:25PM +1000, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 07:11:59PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > >On 2006-01-29 Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Package: libpcre3 > > >>Version: 6.4-1.1 > > >>Severity: wishlist > > > > > >>It would be nice to see libpcre.so* installed in /lib so that the -P > > >>option in grep can be enabled. See also bugs #238237, #237071, #338401, > > >>#338500, (...?). According to these webpages, redhat installs > > >>libpcre.so* in /lib since 2001, for the very same reason : > > >>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41104 > > >>http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/fedora/3/i386/pcre-4.5-3.i386.html > > >[...] > > > > > >(SID)[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ apt-cache show grep libpcre3 | \ > > > egrep '^Pack|^Prio|^Ess' > > >Package: grep > > >Essential: yes > > >Priority: required > > >Package: libpcre3 > > >Priority: standard > > > > > >If standard grep linked against libpcre, libpcre's priority would nee > > >to be bumped and it would become quasi-essential. > > > > > >This would require at least discussion on debian-devel. > > > cu andreas > > > > Mark, > > > > The grep maintainers would like to enable the -P grep option. > > > > Please move libpcre.so* to /lib. > > Instead of moving libpcre and making it quasi-essential, why not > slightly modify grep so that it can dlopen libpcre if present. Not > everyone needs the -P option to grep. But then, there is the problem of > scripts that would use the -P option when libpcre is not present :-/
Those scripts would either be system-specific (in which case the local sysadmin would ensure that libpcre is installed), or be part of a package, that then needs to declare a proper dependency. I don't think there is a problem here. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
