My mail or the BTS must be lagging somewhat. Forgive me if I repeat myself.
On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 03:05:46PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: >On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 11:57:19PM +0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 05, 2006 at 02:47:15PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > >> > But clearly if you're just reporting this strangeness now, months after the >> > package was uploaded, the package isn't actually unusable. So why should >> > this be grave? > >> OK, you may be right, but this certainly is strange! > >Sure, agreed; it's certainly a bug, it just doesn't seem to break anything. No, it's not a bug. It's intentional. Please see the package description. >> > BTW, the packages in sarge shipped the same way, with no ill effects... > >> Really? I would have thought that such important packages would have >> been looked at more closely, and that such a strangeness would have been >> spotted before. > >> But then why have a libperl5.8 package at all? > >I would guess either a) older packages depended on it so it's provided for >transition, or b) to keep the library out of the Essential package to >provide a smaller base system. Both actually. --bod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
