Re: Debian Perl Packagers' Wishlist
Hi,
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Damyan Ivanov <dmn@debian.org> wrote:
> I wonder if my usual rant about Module::Install deserves a place
> there. In the core, is boils down to:
>
> * M:I code is copied in every dist that uses it. we have already
> suffered by a bug that has spread over several packages. Code
> duplication is bad.
I think this is fair, and a situation we should work with upstream
module authors to correct. I think this doesn't affect most authors
because they release their packages quite frequently, and still
consider CPAN (and the cpan shell, cpanminus, etc) to be the "de
facto" way of getting Perl modules. I've been trying to convince
upstream and have had some limited success there.
Moving forward, I don't see too many regressions in Module::Install
being problematic, but we can always clean inc/Module/Install.pm and
inc/Module/Install/* before installation, and engage author mode to
recreate those things. But I don't know if M::I is actually designed
to always be backward compatible or not.
> * the code that is copied in the distribution lacks any
> copyright/licensing information. We have to *guess*, which is never
> good; authors may have put their work inder inc/ too.
I think it applies more to work put under inc/Module/Install; ie, M::I
plugins. Otherwise the information on the copyright.pod page that I
maintain seems to cover most things (and where they don't, people
should feel free to add more!)
>
> If someone could extract a polite whishlist items/bugreports from the
> above, I'd be very grateful. I won't do it myself because (1) I feel
> rather emotional when thinking about M:I and IMO emotions have no
> place in what is supposed to be a technical discussion; (2) My level
> of contribution to pkg-perl is so low that I don't feel as
> a representative of the group.
I don't think this message is overly emotional, you make some cogent
arguments, and your opinion still matters, given your significant past
contributions to the group and the Debian project.
In summary:
I will try to refine these points down and add them to the wishlist. I
think the second part is definitely a problem and will be acknowledged
and fixed by Module::Install; the first part shouldn't be an issue if
M::I maintainers can be perfect and totally avoid regressions...
Cheers,
Jonathan
Reply to: