Re: inline module in a perl script
- To: debian-perl@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: inline module in a perl script
- From: intrigeri <intrigeri@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 02:54:12 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 8538xg7q9n.fsf@boum.org>
- In-reply-to: <201301312111.41545.dod@debian.org> (Dominique Dumont's message of "Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:11:37 +0100")
- References: <CAOvFzeW_6hKHU=B80-Va9oNnGaYx_4vk6SyqAuhHRa+XxXOASA@mail.gmail.com> <201301312111.41545.dod@debian.org>
Hi,
Dominique Dumont wrote (31 Jan 2013 20:11:37 GMT) :
> All in all, I don't think there a roadblock to package pgbadger as is even if
> the resulting package will be lackluster.
At least the security team should be notified of the embedded code
copy: https://wiki.debian.org/EmbeddedCodeCopies
... and as far as I know, neither they, nor the release team will be
very happy about this, unless there's a compelling reason to do it
this way.
So, IMHO, upstreaming the changes into SQL::Beautify is the way to go.
Anyway, this is now Jessie material, so we have time, haven't we? :)
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
Reply to: