develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2012

Re: Reaction to Redhat/Fedora modified releases

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Nicholas Clark
February 3, 2012 12:15
Re: Reaction to Redhat/Fedora modified releases
Message ID:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 07:50:51PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 07:19:09PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:

> > One could solve this by having the "script" installed in /usr/bin be an
> > extremely thin dispatcher wrapper, which looks in a "site/bin", "vendor/bin"
> > and then "core/bin" for the real thing that it wants to exec.
> > 
> > One could also use this for something like /usr/bin/perldoc, as a wrapper to
> > call it if found in "core/bin", and otherwise print the OS "localised" help
> > text for "You need to install the [_1] package to use this program."
> For Debian, we solve the dual-lived script program in the general case
> by using the packaging system's diversion facility, which lets one
> package move a file from another package out of the way.

You have a superior packaging format though. That's cheating. Or foresight. :-)

> For perldoc in particular, we do exactly what you've described above;
> the 'perl' package installs a perldoc stub which invites the user to
> install the 'perl-doc' package for a full implementation (which then
> uses the diversion system to replace the stub).
> By the way, I am aware that we (Debian perl maintainers) should respond
> to some other parts of this thread; unfortunately we haven't yet found
> the time to do so.

It would be really cool if you were able to. Possibly one of your other
selves, as I'm not aware who the other Debian perl maintainers are.

Nicholas Clark

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About