Bug#891334: libglib-object-introspection-perl: Does not recommend or depend on libxml-libxml-perl for perli11ndoc

[intrigeri]

Hi,

> oldtechaa:
> I see what you mean. I think a suggestion would still be good.

> As for its usefulness, it can help with the nuances of the Perl binding.
> Some things get bound kind of weirdly, so personally, I use the C API
> reference but when something doesn't work as it should, I use perli11ndoc.
> The perl-specific examples can be invaluable.

OK, this makes sense to me.

> While it's convenient to have it in $PATH, I can see it being a problem,
> especially since having no manpage violates Debian standards, doesn't it?
> The problem is that's true of any executable from what I saw, not just
> those in $PATH.

The Debian Policy is not specific about this:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#manual-pages

… but the Lintian check clarifies this with "Each binary in /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin, /bin, /sbin or /usr/games should have a manual page":
https://lintian.debian.org/tags/binary-without-manpage.html

I don't recall seeing a manpage for a script shipped in
/usr/share/doc/$PACKAGE/examples.

> Is there any way we can follow standards but keep
> perli11ndoc, even if it's slightly less convenient?

Sure: write a manpage (e.g. add POD and generate a manpage from it at
build time or similar).

Cheers,
-- 
intrigeri