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

[intrigeri]

oldtechaa:
> Sorry I emailed your address, Gmail likes to do that. Original email below.

… and now you emailed the upstream mailing list. I'm putting the
Debian bug back into the loop, Cc'ing the upstream mailing list
*once* so people there understand what's going on, and setting
Reply-To → the Debian bug report.

> 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.

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

Cheers,
-- 
intrigeri