| 1 |
Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Minor updates (5.x.y -> 5.x.y+1) do not need any rebuilds |
| 4 |
> or reinstallations of modules. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
This is at most partially correct: |
| 7 |
At least, after the update, the install directories change; |
| 8 |
here from |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
/usr/lib/perl5/{vendor_perl,}/5.20.1 |
| 11 |
to |
| 12 |
/usr/lib/perl5/{vendor_perl,}/5.20.2 |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
So, at least, perl-cleaner wants to rebuild, and it is sane |
| 15 |
to do this (for various reasons: avoiding confusion with |
| 16 |
mixed directories, compitability with binary packages, |
| 17 |
omitting redundant directories). |
| 18 |
Moreover, I didn't check before the rebuild, but after |
| 19 |
the rebuild there is no 5.20.1 in @INC. |
| 20 |
(So it might be even the case that the rebuild is *necessary*). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I suggest to either use the same 5.x directory for all |
| 23 |
5.x versions, or to include 5.x.y into the subslot name |
| 24 |
to avoid the above mentioned minor inconsistencies. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
After all, the final aim is to use subslots instead of |
| 27 |
perl-cleaner, isn't it? |
Archives