Re: Bug#530615: ITP: libfile-temp-perl -- return name and handle of a temporary file safely
What I meant was, if you are a Debian Developer and you're going to
package a Perl module for Debian, then presumably you know both Perl
and Debian. If you don't, then please just file an RFP and let someone
else take care of it.
Is that a fair assumption to make?
I'd expect people working on packaging C libraries to have at least a
working knowledge of C and some experience working within the C
"communities." Isn't that a fair expectation?
And I don't disagree that Debian (as a project) always needs to be a
consideration when packaging new things. The pkg-perl group itself
maintains over 1,000 packages, which is a pretty big number - after
all, everything we package needs to be built on several different
architectures, and we want to minimize the negative impact this has on
our buildds while also benefiting our users as much as possible.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Guy Hulbert <gwhulbert@eol.ca> wrote:
> I've trimmed the CC list but preserved the subject ...
Oh, I see, I wasn't aware the original e-mail included other people. I
apologize.
>
> On Tue, 2009-26-05 at 11:18 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Guy Hulbert <gwhulbert@eol.ca> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2009-26-05 at 11:05 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
>> >> However, I think within the Perl community, this is something that is
>> >> already widely understood -- that is, dual-lived modules.
>> >
>> > This is a 'debian' list ...
>>
>> This is a debian-perl list. :-) The entirety of the list name is important.
>
> Your paragraph above omits 'debian'.
>
>>
>> It is my hope that any people packaging Perl modules for Debian are
>> also a part of the Perl community, as well as the Debian community.
>
> Neither of these communities is a subset of the other no matter what you
> hope. There are perl programmers who will not touch Debian with a 10
> foot pole (their loss, imo) and there are Debian users who don't know or
> care what a 'perl' is (including Ubuntu users in this group). I am sure
> that the latter group is much larger and size of the user-base is
> important.
>
> I think that the idea of getting all of CPAN into debian is an
> appropriate project for this list but the impact on Debian (and CPAN)
> should be considered. The sheer number of packages in Debian has both
> costs and benefits.
>
> For example*, I think it's a real shame that Ubuntu chose 'unstable'
> rather than 'testing' as their upstream. Using 'testing' would have
> been a much better choice for both Debian and Ubuntu and the decision
> has had (small) negative consequences to both sides.
>
> [*] This would take an essay to explain in detail so I won't bother as
> it's mostly off-topic.
>
>
>>
> --
> --gh
>
>
>
Reply to: