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

Re: invitation for you and your packages to join the pkg-perl team



On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 01:06:03PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> Dear Dmitry,
> 
> In the Debian Perl team, we have been looking at perl module packages
> which are not team maintained and considering whether the lives of
> these packages can be made better (for example, by reducing the overhead
> and increasing the consistency of that packaging), by suggesting that
> they be moved to the pkg-perl team.
> 
> There is no obligation, of course, to do this, but if you would
> like to move any or all of your module packages to the team, you can
> request to join the team and then migrate your packages across. Of
> course, if you are already a team member, then you are already free
> to import and upload your packages under team maintainership.
> 
> The benefits of working within the team include increased consistency
> and efficiency at scale when working with large number of straightforward
> module packages, and more flexibility when it comes to QA work.
> 
> If you don't feel able to join the team but would like your packages
> to benefit from this anyway, you can also reply to this email asking for
> the package(s) in question to be adopted by the team (though obviously
> we'd prefer the former case).
> 
> You can find out more about the team and how to join it at
> <http://pkg-perl.alioth.debian.org/>.
> 
> At this stage we are contacting all such maintainers with a general
> invitation. Future team-wide QA efforts may identify specific
> packages we'd like to help with maintenance of and we may therefore
> follow-up with another invitation in such cases.
> 
> Your lib*-perl packages are listed below for reference:
> 
[...]

> libcorona-perl

[...]

Apologies, I just noticed that this one was already orphaned[1]. I'm
mentioning this on the debian-perl mailing list in case anyone would like
to take it over, although considering the nature of the bug, the low
popcon and apparent lack of upstream maintenance/health, maybe it should be
removed instead?

Cheers,
Dominic.

[1] <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=680774>


Reply to: