Bug#593587: ITP: libparallel-useragent-perl

[Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@43-1.org>]

Hi,

Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> writes:

> Hello,
>
> On 08/29/2010 05:59 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Some packages that use the distribution name instead, but that is not
>> the case either here (there is an additional "-" in the package name).
>> 
>> Please consider changing the package name to "liblwp-parallel-perl"
>> before it is accepted into the archive.
>
> well spotted. As you may guess, we followed the file name. Since
> others will have the same difficulty, I suggest to leave the source
> name as it is name the package just like you say. I'd also want to
> add a Provides to the libparallel-useragent-perl since people
> are really looking for this ... Maybe the notion in the description
> would be sufficient. But, an explicit provides probably helps.

Note that this would be "libparalleluseragent-perl" (there is no dash in
the upstream distribution name).

>> Another related question: Are there other modules that need the older
>> version libwww-perl5.808-perl of libwww-perl besides this one?  At least
>> bioperl1.2.3 in NEW lists the regular libwww-perl as an alternative as
>> well so it seems not required there.
>
> Sigh. Well. That old version of bioperl is the culprit of it all, and that
> in turn is dragged in by Ensembl, which is just on the brink of being uploaded.
> In an Ensembl production environment you would not use the bioperl > 1.2.3 .
> And bioperl1.2.3 needs the liblwp-parallel-perl. When you know what you are
> using, you may possibly have something sufficiently working without the need
> to uninstall the current libwww-perl with the many reverse dependencies.
> But this should not be the default. The real audience for this package though
> are dedicated machines, real or virtual, that don't have much more than Ensembl
> installed. The "|libwww-perl" took a very pragmatic stance.

So I guess this means that bioperl1.2.3 uses libwww-perl directly as
well?  Or is it always handled via this module?

A report on CPAN [1] suggests that it might be easy to fix this module,
but I haven't tested this.  If this turns out to be true and other parts
of bioperl1.2.3 don't require the old version, we could at least save us
from packaging the old version of libwww-perl.

Regards,
Ansgar

[1] <https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=40261#txn-772404>