[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#736820



-=| 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.

> 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.

> >> 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 :)


Cheers,
    dam

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: