[suggest] per-Time-Piece package problem
aaron.scamehorn at cogcap.com
Tue Aug 22 16:38:05 CEST 2006
Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Aaron Scamehorn wrote:
>> First, thanks for the work providing these packages.
>> In the following package:
>> Name : perl-Time-Piece Relocations: (not
>> Version : 2.00_01 Vendor: Dag Apt
>> Repository, http://dag.wieers.com/apt/
>> Release : 1.2.el4.rf Build Date: Sun Nov 27
>> 03:19:45 2005
>> Install Date: Wed Jul 26 15:20:35 2006 Build Host:
>> Group : Applications/CPAN Source RPM:
>> Size : 74071 License: Artistic
>> Signature : DSA/SHA1, Sun Nov 27 10:47:14 2005, Key ID
>> Packager : Dries Verachtert <dries at ulyssis.org>
>> URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Time-Piece/
>> Summary : Object Oriented time objects
>> Description :
>> This module contains Object Oriented time objects.
>> According to the above modules webpage,
>> http://search.cpan.org/dist/Time-Piece/, Version 2.00_01 (and 2.00_00)
>> is a DEVELOPER RELEASE. As such, there is a bug in Piece.pm,v 1.21. I
>> will report this bug to the author of Time::Piece as well
>> Given that Version 2.00_01 is marked as DEVELOPER RELEASE, is it
>> possible for you to fall back to Time-Piece-1.09?
> Yes, this is clearly a problem. We should NOT (read: NEVER) package and
> release developer releases, beta's or release candidates. Clearly if the
> developers themselves are not releasing it as stable, who are we to decide
> There are of course exceptions to this rule, but only very limited ones.
> And certainly not any of the CPAN packages. (One that comes to mind is
> mplayer, since they succeed in doing one release per decade or less :))
>> I composed this email sometime ago, and sent it directly to dag & dries.
>> I've since received a response from the maintainer of Time-Piece that
>> bug id 20743 is resolved. The resolution is: "Resolving as I've
>> discontinued the 2.00 line and deleted from CPAN."
> And now the big problem is, how are we going to downgrade to 1.09.
> I hate to introduce an epoch and much rather remove the 2.00 and just
> update the 1.09 package. That will require a manual downgrade by the
> selected few who have this installed.
Yes, I have already manually downgraded to the 1.09 version. I agree
that this is a better solution than introducing an epoch.
> Do you know what software requires this package, in order to have a better
> understanding how many people are currently affected ?
We use perl-Time-Piece in our internal software. Specifically for
parsing timestamps in log files.
I do not know of any other dependencies on perl-Time-Piece.
> Dries, do you know of any other packages (specifically perl-packages)
> where you might have taken and build a developer release ?
> Kind regards,
> -- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
> [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
More information about the users