Re: Perl module packages looking for a new home
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 10:09:42PM -0600, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Gunnar Wolf (email@example.com) wrote:
> > Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt dijo [Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 10:36:06PM +0100]:
> > > Ardo van Rangelrooij <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > > The following Perl module packages are looking for a new home:
> > > >(...)
> > > > * libroman-perl
> > > >(...)
> > > > I would like to ask the Debian Perl Group to take over maintainership. If you
> > > > don't want these, I'll submit RFA's.
> > >
> > > I think it should be no problem to adopt these packages over the next
> > > few weeks.
> > Ummm... I think we have two modules derived from the same original
> > source and with similar functionality - I maintain libtext-roman-perl
> > since 25-apr-2003. It seems like Roman was abandoned upstream, adopted
> > and repackaged as Text::Roman - it is even almost-documented: From
> > Text::Roman's README:
> > WARNING
> > Be advised that whilst this release supports the old interface, it
> > is now considered deprecated. Please consult docs before using!
> Nope, wrong conclusion. The message about the deprecated interface applies to
> the previous incarnation of Text::Roman itself. Look at the bottom part of the
> module source. There it clearly indicates that some of the functions of the
> module itself are deprecated. It doesn't mention the module Roman in any form
> or shape.
> > I packaged it because another of my packages (libpdf-report-perl)
> > depends on it. Now, I would suggest removing one of them, but:
> > $ apt-cache rdepends libtext-roman-perl libroman-perl
> > libtext-roman-perl
> > Reverse Depends:
> > libpdf-report-perl
> > libroman-perl
> > Reverse Depends:
> > debiandoc-sgml
> > They are both depended on by other packages (yes, one of them by
> > mine).
Where is the problem? Both modules are single-file pure Perl
modules without funny dependendencies and should be no more of
a hassle to package than any other Perl module.
> > Now, being the changes so small, and being Text::Roman a rewrite of
> > Roman, I would suggest dropping Roman. Ardo, you are currently the
> > maintainer of debiandoc-sgml - Do you intend on keeping that one? If
> > so, would you accept if I patched it to use Text::Roman? It is quite a
> > trivial operation.
> debiandoc-sgml depends on the uppercase and lowercase functionality provided by
> Roman. Text::Roman only supports uppercase (unless I'm overlooking something).
> So, once the lowercase functionality gets added to Text::Roman, Roman can be
> removed. Until then it has to stay. And no, I'm not going to add the
> lowercase functionality to debiandoc-sgml itself. That's why we have Perl
The author(s) of Text::Roman might have preferred not to blow
up their interface with functionality already built into
the language. If you are willing to switch function names
anyway you can also add explicit case conversion where needed.
It would not take more than an occasional ``lc'' or ``uc''
near those function calls you would have to touch anyway.
Personally, I'd rather not switch from Roman to Text::Roman,
however, the latter being even more needlessly complicated, not
to mention slow, than the former. But that's probably off-topic
since we are talking about Debian packages, not the original
modules, and design issues are up to the upstream maintainers.