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 ;-) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. 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