oldtechaa: > Sorry I emailed your address, Gmail likes to do that. Original email below.
… and now you emailed the upstream mailing list. I'm putting the Debian bug back into the loop, Cc'ing the upstream mailing list *once* so people there understand what's going on, and setting Reply-To → the Debian bug report. > I see what you mean. I think a suggestion would still be good. > As for its usefulness, it can help with the nuances of the Perl binding. > Some things get bound kind of weirdly, so personally, I use the C API > reference but when something doesn't work as it should, I use perli11ndoc. > The perl-specific examples can be invaluable. > While it's convenient to have it in $PATH, I can see it being a problem, > especially since having no manpage violates Debian standards, doesn't it? > The problem is that's true of any executable from what I saw, not just > those in $PATH. Is there any way we can follow standards but keep > perli11ndoc, even if it's slightly less convenient? Cheers, -- intrigeri _______________________________________________ gtk-perl-list mailing list gtk-perl-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-perl-list
