On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 10:55:49AM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > 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.
Right, yes, I understand your position. In that case the other possible fix for this bug would be to patch ExtUtils::Embed to detect the missing libperl-dev files (this is not a high priority item). Dominic. -- Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/ PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
