>On Wed, Nov 27, 2002, Michael Schloh von Bennewitz wrote: > >> > 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? >> Michael v. E. did a good job in verifying that this openpkg-build even runs with microperl. That means that really every available perl will be compatible enough. We should consider putting microperl into that package.
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Development Team, Application Services, Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH ______________________________________________________________________ The OpenPKG Project www.openpkg.org Developer Communication List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
