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