On Wed, Nov 27, 2002, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > On Wed, Nov 27, 2002, Michael Schloh wrote: > >> [...] >> Redirect buildfiles as well as installation, add build and runtime >> prerequisites, remove unused l_prefix substitution, correct version >> substitution, and do not package unused and generated files. >> [...] > > Err... no, I _INTENTIONALLY_ have _NOT_ made it dependent on Perl and > Make. That's why I packaged the openpkg.1 and not just openpkg.pod. What > you are trying to fix is the @version@. Ok, but not this way, please. > This package includes perl scripts, just like m4 or openssl. In efforts to make OpenPKG as robust and *self contained* as possible, we've always stated dependencies explicitly. Is there a good reason that now, we are not stating that this (clearly perl-needing) package requires perl? How are we going to otherwise know if the external perl is not very old or a custom installation?
You packaged a Makefile, although it was left unused in the packaging. I assumed it could be used to work around the version expansion problem copying the raw manfile. There are a number of other possible solutions however, none of them requiring packaging of the Manfile or a dependency to make. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Development Team, Application Services Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH
msg02614/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
