On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 14:06, Ville Skyttä wrote:
[fedora-devel-list back to Cc and quoted in full, I don't know if
the
copy was accidentally omitted]
Was a pm. Heh. Don't worry about it.
I agree. But for whatever reason, since people tend to use these
tools
anyway, improving them shouldn't hurt.
I agree, but I don't feel like taking on anything that complicated.
But of course not. I have no intention to package the whole CPAN,
and I
hope nobody else tries it alone either :) 20-30 modules is pretty
manageable per packager though.
I know that's why I want some help doing. I do however want all of CPAN
packaged. This is something I think all distributions lack and
something the community would definitely want.
> I myself typically end up requiring 20-30 modules
> for one project alone. This has given me the motivation to pursue this
> fully and I intend to begin the process of creating packages for every
> perl module to start with, then automating building from there.
I have more confidence in packagers continuously cross-QA'ing each
others work than the above (alone). Automating is good whenever it
makes sense though.
I think the QA process is fine, but I think it would be burdonsome for
the process. I dunno.
> > I've just submitted the specfile template to
> >
https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1010 for comments.
> > cpanflute2 and/or cpan2rpm could possibly be tweaked more towards this.
> > The main difference currently with the template and cpanflute2 is that
> > the template takes care of removing more unneeded files and bluntly
> > works around the unowned dirs issue in the past and current RH and FC
> > perl packages,
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73970
> >
>
> I'm past thinking of using those automated cpan2rpm type tools. I've
> gotten enough response where I feel that we need to handle each package
> individually and build a repository from there.
+1
> Contributions are more than welcome (of spec files of course).
> ATRPMs is willing to accept
> submissions, which works for me. In the meantime I can host a testing
> repository for packages until something more formal is worked out.
I'm personally more comfortable with the fedora.us process, it has been
designed for submissions and has almost all the building blocks in place
already, even if there are some rough edges here and there.
Ok agreed, but this probably needs to coordinated externally to get it
up and running.
> > For some weird reason, even though perl module packages
(especially when
> > a template is consistently used) are trivial to review, the QA process
> > seems to take a long time. Help is certainly welcome in this area.
> >
>
> It's not wierd at all.
Let me rephrase: I find the (lack|rarity) of reviews weird, given that
interested folks certainly exist.
Heh that makes more sense than what I thought you were saying. Agreed.
off of criticism) ;-)
Well, we seem to have similar goals. I'd suggest taking advantage of
the fedora.us submission/QA procedures at least until the corresponding
fedora.redhat.com is completely up and running.
Ok so lets try to get some volunteers and get into planning :)
-sb
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list