[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs perl, perldoc

[Peter Bonivart]

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> "it works for me", is not an appropriate substitute for due diligence
> as a maintainer.
> Nor is "well, no-one's complained about it".

Of course it is, it says that I very likely should know if this was an
issue at all since complaints about Perl get channeled through me and
no such complaints have been put forward. The two fixes this release
brings are real issues for real users though.

> (who on earth would know to look at something that deep anyway?)

Are you saying developers are unfamiliar with header files? For
everyone else this whole discussion is nonrelevant.

> If you cant explain what it does, then you need to patch it.
>
> I'm not "forcing" you to patch it... you can patch it, OR do research
> to explain what what it is and why it isnt important. But you can't
> avoid doing both of them.

I will not do any extra work, the packages are ready to go according
to our current standards. You're just making this up following your
latest obsession. Again you're mixing up your personal views with your
job as release manager. You have been recommended to separate this by
bringing up discussions on maintainers but still you use this
opportunity to force your view. It's just wrong and I hope it will end
soon.

>> For reference, both Red Hat and Debian leaves these paths as is.
>
> okay, that's a good sign.. but still not enough for something like this.
> Maybe this would explain some of the incompatibility we've had with
> newer perl vs older modules.

No, the ABI changes between major versions of Perl so when we went
from 5.8.8 to 5.10.1 around 100 modules using libperl needed to be
rebuilt. We have done so.

Also it's funny how references to Debian are only valid when they work for you.