On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 10:11:18PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 08:47:49AM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 02:51:57PM -0600, Stephen Waters wrote: > > > Package: perl-modules > > > Version: 5.8.0-17 > > > > > > When perl-modules is installed but libperl-dev is not, ExtUtils::Embed > > > incorrectly reports -lperl to be available.
> > No other module in perl-modules requires ExtUtils::Embed AFAICS, so that > > part should not be a problem. Also, I expect that every package that > > needs ExtUtils::Embed already depends on libperl-dev as the module is > > quite useless otherwise. > > No response from Brendan in the bug log, but I don't see why we > shouldn't bite the bullet and do this. There's the argument that a normal system should have all or nothing of the upstream perl distribution installed. Although we're sort of violating that already with the missing libperl.so symlink, a missing ExtUtils::Embed is a somewhat clearer case of "crippling perl." TBH, after the last time I tried to split out the dual lived modules [1] I don't have much enthusiasm in pursuing such changes. I'm slightly inclined to keep the status quo with ExtUtils::EMbed until (if?) things change with the dual lived modules, but YMMV. [1] threads at http://lists.debian.org/debian-perl/2010/11/msg00017.html and http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2010-11/msg00499.html -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org