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

Re: Pending membership requests

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:19:16 +0200, Jeremiah Foster wrote:

>> Now, it's not that I'm deciding on behalf of everybody that 'ack'
>> should not enter our repository (everybody has their voice, and it
>> might be worthy to add some other packages - I don't suggest going
>> that way, but we could debate on it), it's just that it not what we
>> currently do.
> I'm not sure what you mean Gunnar, might you clarify? Do you mean that 
> there is a set of packages the debian-perl maintains and that the group 
> focuses on having those in good shape for debian? Or do you think that 
> 'ack' is not a tool that should be in debian?

The first option. Until now the Debian Perl group (a.k.a. the
pkg-perl team) maintains perl _modules_ and no applications written
in perl. (Cf. announcements.txt and goals.txt on
http://pkg-perl.alioth.debian.org/ ).
If we decided to also include applications that would be a change of
the groups task which would need a common decision.

> Personally I don't really care, I have downloaded ack from CPAN and plan to 
> play with it to see what it can do, I am just trying to understand the 
> intent of the debian-perl group.

Maybe there's some confusion about ack - is this a module or an
application? If we are talking about
http://search.cpan.org/~petdance/ack-1.64/Ack.pm (App::Ack) then
there's no question, I guess ;-)

 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
 : :' :  debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: