DebConf12 pkg-perl BoF notes
Here are my cleaned-up notes from the pkg-perl BoF just now. Do reply
with any corrections/omissions. :)
~~~
0 Introductions
1 Policy Discussions
1.1 Copyight Format 1.0
1.2 Branch names for use in git repositories
1.3 Uploading NEW packages to unstable during wheezy freeze
2 Tools (PET)
3 Cleaning up list of group members
4 Deletion of SVN
~~~
0 Introductions
Gregoa introduced the Perl group, and everyone introduced themselves.
1 Policy Discussions
1.1 Copyight Format 1.0
The proposed wording for the Perl policy was read out:
Each package should have the copyright file F<debian/copyright>
following the
copyright-format 1.0 or newer. copyright-format 1.0 as released
together with
Debian policy 3.9.3 is documented at
L<http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/>.
All released copyright-format specifications can be found under
L<http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/>.
The wording was agreed unanimously.
1.2 Branch names for use in git repositories
ansgar is mainly using the release codename as a branch name. The main
exception is "experimental", where there is not a single line of
development over time. For squeeze-proposed-updates, just use
"squeeze".
Most tools work on the "master" branch, so that is for unstable.
The consensus seemed to be that this was sensible.
There was discussion around whether PET was affected by branch names,
but there was not a clear conclusion on this.
1.3 Uploading NEW packages to unstable during wheezy freeze
For squeeze, two years ago at DC10, the decision was "yes, but be
careful" - so be sensible about not uploading new versions of packages
with lots of reverse dependencies e.g. libdbi-perl. We needed only
two uploads through proposed-updates, so it was fairly successful.
Tincho asked whether this conflicts with the Release Team plans;
informal talks with the Release Team have indicated that it should be
acceptable. (The main risk during the freeze is breaking other
packages e.g. through soname bumps; this has not been so much of a
problem with Perl packages.)
Consensus was to proceed in the same way for wheezy.
2 Tools (PET)
It was proposed to pick only one of the three tools (dh-make-perl,
packagecheck, PET) to focus on solving the open issues before next
year. Attention soon turned to PET.
It was discussed whether PET should be a Debian package - difficulties
of this approach include packaging a web application, and having to go
through the alioth admins to make changes to the live instance.
It was suggested to set up a BTS virtual package for PET, to get the
benefits of the BTS without the difficulties of actually packaging it.
This might require running it under debian.org. dkg volunteered to go
talk to Don about this.
To solve any potential issues regarding access to the machine running
PET, it was agreed that PET should be moved to alioth.
Requirements for new features need to be listed (either on the wiki or
the BTS) and then people found to implement them.
3 Cleaning up list of group members
It was discussed whether we want to remove pkg-perl members who had
not been active in a while. Some people had been pinged previously,
although this list of people is now out of date.
As we were running out of time, this was to be followed up on the
mailing list (although the consensus seemed to be that this was not a
controversial idea).
4 Deletion of SVN
To conclude the meeting, dam (via IRC) deleted the old pkg-perl
subversion repository:
16:55 < dam> for the record, the removal took 14.77 seconds @50% CPU. it seems
svn can be fast at times :)
--
Tim Retout <diocles@debian.org>
Reply to: