[suggest] Perl module update request list

David Steinbrunner dsteinbrunner at pobox.com
Tue Dec 14 21:59:59 CET 2010


On 11/2/10 8:18 PM, "Dag Wieers" <dag at wieers.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 3 Nov 2010, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2 Nov 2010, Christoph Maser wrote:
>>
>>>  Am Freitag, den 29.10.2010, 14:00 +0200 schrieb Yury V. Zaytsev:
>>> >  On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 13:46 +0200, Christoph Maser wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > >  I wonder if we can have a new version of ExtUtils::MakeMaker in
>>>the
>>> > >  buildtools repo?
>>> > 
>>> >  If it backwards compatible why not? Just tag it as such...
>>>
>>>  But wich one will be used?. ExtUtils::MakeMaker in in the perl base
>>>  package, so I guess a newe Version in the vendorlib dir will just not
>>>  do.
>>
>> If this is the typical: we need the package only as a BuildRequirement,
>>but 
>> never as a real requirement. Then the package belongs in the buildtools
>> repository (together with the newer bison and flex).
>
>Replying to the wrong message, again...
>
>A newer version in the vendorlib should work for RHEL5. The only problem
>are the man-pages, which we can filter out with our fancy filtering
>macros !
>
>If we plan to replace other modules from the perl package, I would
>propose 
>we put them in the future 'extras' repositories where all packages will
>house that replace base (or depend on stuff that replace base).
>
>Still need a good name for that though...

Now that extras and other build changes are in in place is the latest
namespace::clean capable of being packaged?

Thanks,

--
David Steinbrunner






More information about the users mailing list