On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 21:02:43 +0100, Alex Muntada wrote:
> > group perl-team: owners Dom ntyni and me
> > subgroup interpreter: owners (explicitly set) Dom and ntyni
> > subgroup modules: owners (explicitly set) Dom ntyni me and carnil [0]
> > subgroup packages: inherited members
> > subgroup attic: inherited members
> Looks good to me too. I'm just wondering if subgroup "projects"
> would fit better the purpose of not-interpreter subgroup while
> being more inclusive as a description, i.e. perl projects.
A good time to get a consensus here before the name is enshrined in
too many places :)
Thinking out aloud:
0) I don't care alot how we name this subteam.
1) I don't particularly like the term "project" (in general, as it's
so vague).
2) I'm not very excited about "modules".
3) Historically, the Debian Perl Group packaged only modules.
4) Except that we actually packaged CPAN distributions which contain
modules.
5) Nowadays we still mostly packages modules-in-CPAN-distributions,
and a couple of "apps" (does anyone remember the split into
$something and "apps" back in SVN? Where "apps" was empty.), [0]
and the odd thingie from somewhere else.
6) Most of theses not-module packages are still from the CPAN. [1]
7) Reading through the lines above, I mention (in brainstorming mode)
"distributions" and "cpan" and 'core vs. cpan' as options.
8) As I said, I don't care alot :)
Cheers,
gregor
[0] Or something like this, I might misremember.
[1] Currently 3449 packages in git have a Homepage field, and 3261
match "cpan". So 94.5% is the lower bound, there are also URLs
like http://datetime.perl.org/ where the tarballs are still on
the CPAN.
--
.''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
: :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
`. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
`- NP: Treibhaus: Nils Petter Molvaer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature