Hi Guys,
I've been taking a look at the following bug report [1], which triggered
a package removal from testing today.
Looking at documentation on metacpan and the source code, I can see that
all the included examples do require the two packages that aren't
packaged (not sure whether it warranted a grave severity or not).
Packaging of these isn't going to be a small task due to the number of
required dependencies.
1st Batch (required by 2nd batch):
+ Carp - https://metacpan.org/release/Carp
2nd Batch (required by 3rd batch):
+ IO - https://metacpan.org/release/IO
+ Time-HiRes - https://metacpan.org/release/Time-HiRes
+ Net-IPv6Addr - https://metacpan.org/release/Net-IPv6Addr
3rd Batch (required by 4th batch):
+ Net-Frame-Dump - https://metacpan.org/release/Net-Frame-Dump
+ Net-Frame-Layer-ICMPv6 -
https://metacpan.org/release/Net-Frame-Layer-ICMPv6
+ Net-Frame-Layer-IPv6 -
https://metacpan.org/release/Net-Frame-Layer-IPv6
+ Net-Frame-Simple - https://metacpan.org/release/Net-Frame-Simple
+ Net-Libdnet6 - https://metacpan.org/release/Net-Libdnet6
4th Batch:
+ Net-Frame-Device - https://metacpan.org/release/Net-Frame-Device
Before I go ahead and begin packaging all 10 of these I wanted to get
the groups' opinion on this and whether it would be worthwhile
proceeding with this for a package that has a relatively low but rising
popcon [2], but obviously has user interest.
Cheers,
Daniel Lintott
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=736820
[2] http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=libnet-frame-perl
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature