Re: Bug#736820
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 25/02/14 22:09, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> -=| Daniel Lintott, 25.02.2014 21:37:30 +0000 |=-
>> On 25/02/14 21:28, gregor herrmann wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 20:39:56 +0000, Daniel Lintott wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> Carp, IO, and Time::HiRes are in perl core (or are newer
>>> versions needed?), Net::IPv6Addr is in libnet-ipv6addr-perl.
>>
>> Ooops.. My mistake on that one! Still getting to grips on exactly
>> what is included in the perl core.
>
> corelist (from libmodule-corelist-perl) is of great help for this.
>
I shall take a look at that
>> Ahh... That's okay... Didn't realise Net::IPv6Addr wasn't in the
>> group.
>
> apt-file search Net/IPv6Addr.pm should have helped.
>
> I think that attempts to package these with dh-make-perl would emit
> warnings as well.
>
Ah.. yes! apt-file... forgot about that momentarily, despite using it
regularly!
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> The Net::Frame::* modules are indeed not packaged yet ...
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Hm, no idea, I defer to others :)
>>>
>>
>> I shall await some input from others.
>
> AIUI, we either package the missing deps or drop the module.
>
> Dropping doesn't really give us anything, so I'd lean towards
> packaging the dependencies.
>
> It doesn't have to be done immediately. I guess if it is emergency
> for someone, that someone would be willing to help :)
>
I guessing it isn't an emergency, but I shall take a look at the
packaging in the next few days.
Thanks again for all the advice guys!
Cheers,
Daniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTDRpSAAoJEMw/9yOWzAkJSokH/14zP8mjzSNWtKuJaoLHTmUh
5V8gqcFUTkll5/RJ4xA6tTykt6LhVBgBS7vmZf/gwFAEl3D7+0b23w6U55rrisVZ
mzfgXMN9zYMKfglzb6108QcWHP1r0H+M0P2qQGhzCpyUJnb0lQ8BO+IW7ffRKJvT
/C2U2JZposEx+DKu2imlrrda7NBeAB6RICLfcId3SeMYk5TfvpqoVhKjAl1974iJ
TFYFGcW08urMMj6Z5cWNLptymF8nOgrf1tAOIYYb2YDdVsn58g4moXhdHVYEIYpu
JsYAPF960CCR3fyryVyyYjrktZR7DTXtH5deBKV2O6y5MSioYXv9N+ElPo+m/Xc=
=G4KV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: