Re: libnet-domain-tld-perl and libemail-valid-perl
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 08:15:14PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> What I've done so far:
> * cloned #360593 and reassigned the clone to libemail-valid-perl
> (because work is needed on both packages) - #360792.
> * added a versioned conflicts against libemail-valid-perl (<= 0.15-3)
> * added a changelog entry that closes 360593
> * uploaded to svn
> That's where I get confused:
> * libemail-valid-perl is in the svn repository with version 0.15-2
> * testing and unstable have 0.15-3
> * Maintainer is not the Debian Perl Group but Ron Lee <email@example.com>
> * The last changelog entry is from 2005-10-31 with urgency high (to
> fix FTBFS #336188)
> * If this package is not maintained by the Debian Perl Group then I
> guess it's no good idea to have it in our repository ;-)
I'm not sure what their plan in that respect is. I offered up the
perl packages I don't use much anymore (for the present at least)
when they first formed, but as you can see, they are fairly stable
and low maintainance, and well supported by people like yourself,
so I'm happy to not orphan them and add anyone prepared to help
when they can (but not to fully adopt them long term, such as
Gunnar indicated some time ago) to the Uploaders.
The consensus at the time was the perl group had plenty of bigger
fish to phry first, and this arrangement would suffice well enough
for the time being.
I'd also be happy enough to keep any changes in a public repo if
that will be helpful.
> * I then patched the package (based on 0.15-3 in unstable) and sent
> the patch to #360792.
> Could someone from the Debian Perl Group take care of
> libnet-domain-tld-perl (and probably the old version of
> libemail-valid-perl in svn, too?)? And maybe Ron, could you take a
> look at libemail-valid-perl? - If my patch is ok it should be sent
> upstreams too, I guess ...
Thanks, I prepared a new upload to ack your patch (and add you to the
uploaders), but of course I can't build and upload it until the new
l-d-t-p 1.65-2 is available.
I'm not really set up to test it very well right now, so I'll have
to take the changes (to Valid.pm at least) on faith and subsequent
testing. But I don't see anything glaringly wrong with what you
did, and there are some obvious improvements, so you are welcome
to follow this up with a 'co-maintainer' hat on at the very least.
All I ask is that if you break things, you attend to them fairly
promptly with a fix. If the perl group wants to take a greater
role with this package, I'm certainly open to any sensible
suggestions people may have.