Bug#562214: libdevel-cover-perl: Warnings about having been built against different Perl version

[Ryan Niebur]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:07:33PM +0000, Tim Retout wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 13:19 -0800, Ryan Niebur wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 04:09:43PM -0500, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Tim Retout <tim at retout.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > So we need to tighten up the Depends to match the version of Perl that
> > > > libdevel-cover-perl was compiled against.
> > > I get these warnings too, and have always considered them more of an
> > > annoyance than a bug. I have been thinking about how to deal with this
> > > issue, but I have not come up with an elegant solution that would suit
> > > our purpose. I'd love to hear about this from the rest of the group.
> > > 
> > 
> > lets just binnmu them as we find them?
> 
> Yes to this.
> 
> But to spot these more easily in the future, we can add some magic to
> debian/rules and debian/control to force the dependency.  They'll still
> need a binNMU, but I suspect that some automated/manual mechanisms will
> pick this up sooner if it causes an installability problem (hopefully
> without having to involve pkg-perl at all).
> 
> It's only a trivial annoyance with 5.10.0 and 5.10.1, but with future
> jumps it could break stuff, in the worst case.
> 

we already have dh_perl which sets perl:Depends for us. perhaps it
could be extended for cases like this to make the dependency break
with new upstream perl versions. I wonder, is there any way we can
tell (from code) that it needs to have the stricter dependencies?

-- 
_________________________
Ryan Niebur
ryanryan52 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-perl-maintainers/attachments/20091223/84c096e9/attachment.pgp>