On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:57:16PM -0400, Daniel B. wrote: > Since the other package is not dependent on perl, then by your own > dictionary's definition, the other package is not a dependency of > perl. (Any divergence between us yet?)
This is your point of error. The dependency belongs to perl, that's why it's a dependency OF perl's. If the other package had the dependency, then it would be a dependency ON perl, not "of". I am dependent on coffee, therefore coffee is a dependency of mine. Strictly speaking, I think there may be a missing "'s" in perl policy there, i.e. it should say, "a dependency of perl's", not "a dependency of perl", but the meaning doesn't actually change. It's just a little more awkward (and somewhat more colloquial) the way it's currently phrased. cheers -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
