Hi, as you might know from previous discussions there was a QA Hackathon in Oslo between 5-7 April. http://perl-qa.hexten.net/wiki/index.php/Oslo_QA_Hackathon_2008 There were a few Debian and FreeBSD packagers. Unfortunately no Fedora packager came. Anyway, we have worked on several issues. The one that is very relevant to you ppl is that we added a metric to CPANTS http://cpants.perl.org/ called easily_repackageable_by_fedora It is an aggregate metric that is currently based on the following metrics: no_generated_files fits_fedora_license That is, the easily_repackageable_by_fedora will be green only if both of those are ok. Descriptions can be found here: http://cpants.perl.org/kwalitee.html While this is a start we have many more things to do: 1) I'd like to get your help in defining which other metrics should be used for aggregating into the easily_repackageable_by_fedora metric. 2) We are currently working fetching the licenses directly from the .pm files as well. I hope to integrate that too. 3) We have discussed with the Debian and FreeBSD ppl but it might also interest you guys to include two metrics: has_no_bugs_in_fedora has_no_pacthes_in_fedora The first one would indicate if there is a bug in the fedora bug tracking system filed against the distribution. The second one would indicate that Fedora had to patch the module in order to distribute it. What do you think? So why would you care? I think this can largely help the communication between the module authors and the Fedora packagers. This can be a good way to communicate back to the module authors what are the main issues you are dealing with and how can they make your life easier. regards Gabor Szabo http://www.szabgab.com/ -- 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
