[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libnet-domain-tld-perl and libemail-valid-perl



On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 10:27:48PM +0930, Ron wrote:

Hi Ron,

thanks for your reply.

> > libemail-valid-perl:
> > * 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 <ron@debian.org>
> 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'm a new member of the Debian Perl Group, so I don't know the whole
history. Gunnar invited me with the argument "we can help in
maintaining your packages and you can help in maintaining ours" and I
found that idea appealing. And I still like the idea after being "on
board" for some weeks and having experienced a small part of the
everday work.

I think that moving one's packages to the (svn respository of the)
Debian Perl Group doesn't mean to orphan them but to profit from the
support of others - although it might mean to have less control, too.

And from my personal point of view it's easier to help with packages
that are under a public repository (because some svn commands are
quicker then getting the source, changing, building, creating diffs,
sending them to the BTS).

> > * I then patched the package (based on 0.15-3 in unstable) and sent
> >   the patch to #360792.
> 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.

Thanks for adopting the patch and adding me to Uploaders.

And yes, libnet-domain-tld-perl should be updated first. My patch is
in the DPG svn repository, so we only need a DD from the DPG who
checks and uploads the new revision *hint hint*
 
> 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.

Thanks!
 
> All I ask is that if you break things, you attend to them fairly
> promptly with a fix.  

I intend to do that if I get to know of it.

> If the perl group wants to take a greater
> role with this package, I'm certainly open to any sensible
> suggestions people may have.

IMHO it's easier to deal with (packages and especially) bugs together
in the DPG 'cause everybody gets the bug reports, whoever has enough
time can fix them, and comments/discussions are easier, too. - In
other words: I guess the question is less if the DPG wants a greater
role but more if you would like to participate in this group.

If I should suggest something I'd propose that you join the DPG, move
your packages over to common repository, take care of them as before,
and profit from the help of others.

(And if you decide to maintain the packages on your own - which is
perfectly ok for me - I suggest that we remove the old version from
the DPG's repository to avoid further confusion.)


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
 : :' :  infos zur usenet-hierarchie at.*: http://www.usenet.at/
 `. `'   member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/
   `-    NP: Penelope Swales: Waterclock

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: