On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 22:02:32 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > > > Build-Depends: perl (>= 5.17.1~) | libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000), > > > libmodule-build-perl
> > For a future perl-modules 5.22, if the Breaks is kept, everything > > should be fine. If the Breaks is dropped there is indeed a loophole > > (for versions >= 0.420500), if I'm seeing this correctly. > I expect to drop the Breaks will be dropped when Module::Build is dropped. > Their purpose is to prevent an older separate package overriding a newer > one in the Perl core. > > I don't understand the "(for versions >= 0.420500)" part above. Surely > any Module::Build version >= 0.420500 is fine? Did you mean > "(for versions <= 0.400000)"? Looks like my brain was twisted again :) I was thinking about a situation when a newer Module::Build might be needed in the future, and perl 5.22 doesn't Breaks older versions of libmodule-build-perl; but then the part left of the comma in the original example needs to be rewritten anyway. Phew :) > > > Build-Depends: perl (>= 5.17.1~) | libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000), > > > libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000) | perl (<< 5.21~) > > (I guess I'd still go for a plain 'libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000)'. > > If only to save us all from further headaches :)) > I agree a plain libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000) is a good way > forward. It's a bit suboptimal for backporting as it unnecessarily pulls > in the separate package on older systems, but should still work. And > it's simple and the right thing for >= 5.20. Maybe a comment in d/control would help backporters? Nothing I'd propose to do for every package but it's a possibility ... Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: J.J. Cale: Cocaine
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
