On Sun, 05 Dec 2021 19:09:38 +0100 intrigeri <intrig...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Felix Lechner (2021-12-05): > > Moo performs faster when Class::XSAccessor is available [1] but > > libmoo-perl only Recommends it. More important, Moo's behavior changes > > when Class::XSAccessor is installed. [1] For consistency as well as > > performance, Moo should probably Depend on libclass-xsaccessor-perl. > > > > While a new, hard prerequisite may cause some programs using Moo to > > fail unexpectedly, they would at least do so consistently. It would > > eliminate a transient class of bugs that depends on whether > > Class::XSAccessor is present on a reporter's system—something that can > > be hard to pin down when the installable is only recommended. > > I agree with your reasoning. > > I'm 90% convinced we should do this but I'd first like to understand > why upstream chose to only recommend Class::XSAccessor: their > reasoning might make sense for us too :) > > Would you mind asking upstream about this?
I'm the maintainer of Moo. The reason Class::XSAccessor isn't listed as a hard prerequisite is that Moo is intended to be compatible with systems without a compiler available. Since XS modules require a compiler, Moo does not have any non-core hard dependencies that use XS. When packaging for Debian (or any other dist) it would be entirely reasonable to list it as a hard prereq.
