On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Chris Weyl <cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Dave Cross <dave@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Chris Weyl wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 4:37 AM, Dave Cross <dave@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> Gabor Szabo wrote: >> >> >> >>> So I'd like to ask you to add Task::Kensho to the list of perl >> >>> packages you include in Fedora. Satisfying all of the dependencies >> >>> will bring a nice subset of CPAN to the Fedora users. >> >>> >> >> One of the points I made in my post was that I've already build RPMs >> >> for >> >> all of the Kensho modules (or, at least, the ones that aren't already >> >> in the >> >> Fedora repositories). So if you wanted to move them into the Fedora >> >> project >> >> you could grab them from http://rpm.mag-sol.com/. >> >> >> > >> > Another thing I didn't mention... If you (or anyone, really) wants to >> > submit these packages, I'll help review them. >> >> What advantage would that give? The RPMs are are already available for >> anyone who wants them. I'm not sure why they need another level of >> validation. > > >> >> Eventually, my plan is to monitor CPAN and to automatically rebuild >> modules as they are uploaded. I'm also going to make them available at >> http://rpm.pkgs.cpan.org/. I don't really see any need for this to be >> part of the Fedora project (particularly as I build RPMs for Centos too). > > Well, to me, the reason to submit packages to Fedora is to have the bits I'm > interested in widely and easily available, without having to set up my own > 3rd party repository (VCS, bug tracker, buildsystem, hosting, etc, etc). > It's a little extra work for a lot of extra gain; and I have scripts that > automate the more tedious/routine bits. A review is mandated as part of the > submission process... It's pretty straight forward, and for packages > created with cpanspec or the like, essentially pro forma at this point. > > There's also a larger group of people than "just me" interested in Perl in > Fedora, which has its advantages. > > But, TMTOWTDI :-) I know I'd like to see a more up-to-date set of Perl > packages for RHEL/Centos, as we use that in places at $work and the > restrictions around EPEL make it pretty unworkable for me. Let me give my own view as someone who does not currently use Fedora but who seas many companies using Fedora or Red Hat. It seems to be much easier to convince a sysadmin or a manager to install another package supplied by the same vendor than to go to CPAN and install from there. Having a separate rpm repository might work for some people but many won't get the approval of whoever needs to give this approval. We might or might not agree with the value of this practice but if we would like them to use more of CPAN we need to play that game. In addition there is a certain added value in the fact that module versions are frozen at a certain hopefully stable point in time, when the distro was released. In many cases it is better to use the boring but stable than the cuting edge from CPAN or from a CPAN2rpm mirror site. Gabor -- 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
