Re: Release impact of introducing a new archive section?
On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 07:46:23AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 14515 March 1977, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >> Longer version: I think we should patch the tools first and /if/ we are
> >> in time before the release, we can add the sections. To my knowledge,
> >> there are basically no ill effects of tools knowing sections that does
> >> not yet exist.
> > That's a good idea; thank you. I'll start working on those patches.
>
> While you are in there, there is #816693, also I'm unsure (and offline
> atm) how many perl6 packages we currently have.
As far as I can tell, we have 2 such packages: perl6 and perl6-panda.
We have several packages named libperl6-*, but reading their
descriptions, they actually provide modules for perl5 that emulate perl6
functionality, so the package names seem incorrect.
Python 2 and 3 packages both use the "python" section, and distinguish
packages by package name (python-* versus python3-*); might it make
sense to just use the "perl" section, and distinguish modules for perl5
versus perl6 by package name?
I don't have any objections to such a section, but at this point I'm
already halfway through writing patches adding the "rust" and
"javascript" sections.
> And maybe to take suggestion from #802488 in mind.
Already done.
> And thanks for the work on it.
Thank you for supporting it.
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: