Most likely people don't want to support perl less than 5.8, or feel
that they are justified in insisting that people upgrade to a newer
perl if they want to do serious development.
I'd consider such reasons abusing one's power as maintainer, I sure hope
noone is doing such things, and as far as I understand debian contract
prevents should prevent people from doing such bad things. This must be
something else.
... and *not* doing such things is an abuse as well, only of the
maintainers rather than of power. abusing maintainers (with hellishly
complex support load) is not a good way to retain them.
This is a pretty sane attitude for a package maintainer to have, to be
honest. Whether it is "true" or not - whether the package CAN be built
usually such behaviour is being struck down - for example marking
package as buildable only on x86, while it can be made to work on wider
range of architectures.
depends. accuracy is good, but sanity helps too. see the other comment
in this thread re: debian-specific patches to core perl bits.
with an older perl or not - is *completely* irrelevant.
I'd consider defining smallest possible set of dependencies good
practice, maybe I should learn something?
the default perl for sarge is going to be 5.8.x, isn't it? it makes very
little sense to support ancient perl installations in any other way than
"please upgrade your packages via this supported upgrade path, install
reasonably current versions of all problematic packages, and then try
again."
if people want to run ancient crappy software (and i mean REALLY ancient,
not ancient-as-in-debian-stable ancient..) they are welcome to install
crufty historical versions of perl modules from cpan and enjoy
themselves... but i don't think anyone is going to say that that's a good
idea.
this whole thread is a bit trollish. i think you are probably talking to
the wrong audience with your comments.
elijah
|
| 
