[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs perl, perldoc

[Philip Brown]

On 1/24/11, Peter Bonivart <bonivart at opencsw.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
>
>> 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, ...

then you're not doing your job properly as perl maintainer.

>Again you're mixing up your personal views with your
> job as release manager.

no, I'm bringing up a valid technical point of concern, which you
should have responded to on a technical level.



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

references to debian are useful, when either
a) there is no other point of concern, and its just an aesthetic choice, or
b) the debian use, comes along with a debian writeup of "this is why
debian does it this way".

This was not merely an aesthetic choice, and there was no debian
writeup on this issue (or at least, none that was referenced.)

As such, and if there was no further technical response, to a
potentially major issue in  a very major package, these packages
should still sit in newpkgs, until the concerns were addressed.

HOWEVER.... since Ben was nice enough to do Your Job For You, and
research the technical issue, and email a technical response to the
issue... the issue has now been appropriately "addressed".  Thank you
Ben.
Packages are now headed to be batched.

that being said, the issue still merits either some kind of writeup in
/opt/csw/share/doc/perl/README or something, with a warning about if
users choose to use "-DPERL_MICRO".
Or, as I suggested in the first place, the files should just be
patched like they should have been in the first place. That is
probably the better solution.

But, given what Ben wrote, this sounds like a very very rare instance.
rare enough to not make it release-critical any more.