Re: Issue 9 (golang) packaging, part 2
Russ Allbery <rra <at> debian.org> writes:
> Do you think there's something substantial missing from the existing
> Debian packaging of Perl modules? I'm quite happy with what Debian is
(Oops. Forgot to fix a spelling mistake in the Subject in my
first reply. It’s not Go!) (Hello GMane, no I was *not* top-posting…
but apparently I have to move this paragraph down.)
I’m not versed enough in the ways of Perl to be able to comment
on this. I meant no slight in any way to the existing packages.
I was just speculating on missing things that need to be packaged…
> anything. Most of what's available in CPAN that isn't already packaged is
> either new or quite obscure, and much of what's available but obscure
> probably *shouldn't* be packaged: it's buggy, abandoned, an inferior
> version of something that's already packaged, or otherwise just not of
> general interest.
… but apparently, there’s no need to do anything more ;-)
That is, of course, even better. Then, just use the packaged things.
(Side note: not that I like PHP even one bit, but at least it doesn’t
make actually packaging its thingies hard. With my FusionForge developer
hat on, we generally have everything needed already in Debian or can
easily add it, so that we can really say what the DDs in the upstream
team prefer: if it’s not in Debian, it doesn’t exist.)
bye,
//mirabilos
PS: Please do not call golang “Go”, it’s a hostile name take-over that
could have easily been fixed (instead of becoming hostile; I’m sure
it was just an oversight initially) when Issue 9 was filed. I follow
the tradition to call the language “Issue 9” in reference to both that
bug and Plan 9 instead, but “golang” is probably fine. Or “go-nuts”…
Reply to: