* Ralf Corsepius [07/03/2008 10:53] : > > To put it bluntly: Perl-dists in Fedora are more or less community-only > maintained, i.e. inclusion of perl-dists in Fedora is more or less > community demand-driven => There is little demand for these remaining > 12000 packages, probably because hardly anybody needs them. I've got a handful of Perl modules that I've rolled into rpms and I seriously doubt I'm the only one. How does one ask for a perl module to be packaged ? > > > - Think about the licenses you apply. Write Free software. > > > > Do you have examples you encountered where it is not so on CPAN? > I don't have a concrete example at hand, but there have been plenty of > such cases. The RPM2 module took a long time to package because its license was unclear (see bug #184530 for details). perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate had a similar issue (bug #171640). search.cpan.org always calls a module's licence as "Unknown" no matter how clearly the licence is in the source code itself. > You might not be aware about it, but there are people who considers the > original "Artistic" license to be non-free (One of these groups is the > FSF: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html) To be fair, this page calls Artistic too vague to be qualified as free (I presume this means it's equally too vague to be qualified as non-free). Both the clarified AL and AL 2.0 are qualified as free and GPL-compatible. Emmanuel -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list Fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list