Julian Mehnle wrote: > I wasn't so much asking for sponsorship rather than whether Perl apps on > CPAN are generally considered "out" no matter their complexity? I.e., if > it does have a "bin/" dir, it's out? Or what will the criteria be? I hope not, I'd like to upload Perl::Critic soon. :-) FWIW, Perl::Critic has a perlcritic script that many people will use. It also can hook into Test::More, or be used in other ways as a library though. Oh and it's pretty handy, but don't take all its suggestions seriously. :-) It seems somehow right for this package to be maintained by the perl group, while it doesn't seem for for say, ikiwiki to be maintained there. At a high level, there's not a lot of difference between their code. Both packages have extensive perl libraries that do most of the work, and both libraries can be used by other stuff, including by plugin libraries that extend the core package. Both have a small frontend script that most people will use. Indeed, the ikiwiki script is only 149 lines to perlcritic's 1379. Being in cpan is a good criteria, but then ikiwiki isn't in cpan for the same subjective reasons that I didn't package it as a perl module package. I think in the end it comes down to that subjective reason -- it's ikiwiki, not Wiki::Iki; the implementation language is essentially arbitrary. OTOH with Perl::Critic, it seems to want to be a perl library first, and convenience script second. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature