Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On 24 January 2012 16:49, David Golden <xdaveg@gmail.com> wrote: >> (a) Either Perl 5 Porters (i.e. Rik as Pumpking) or TPF should contact > Fedora/Redhat packagers and inform them of our concerns. I'm not > saying that TPF should slap them with a "cease and desist" (though > that would certainly be emotionally satisfying), but I do think we > should "officially" raise concerns that splitting out core libraries > is not viewed as acceptable by upstream and that we do not feel it is > in the spirit of the license. I do not think we should do this. I *know* they are fully aware of my previous post today on the subject, and they are waiting for us to post advice that they can comply with. I do not think any kind of formal communication is either helpful or necessary, and indeed may even be counter productive. I feel pretty strongly that we COULD have provided advice for repackagers, and we did not, mostly due to failings in how our community operates and that it would be unfair to in any way hold this against them. Specifically my post was not that THEY did it, but that it was done in general. However this may impact legal rights we have, so I think you are right that TPF should do some investigating to see if that is the case. Perhaps the lawyers say that we are obliged to, in which case IMO it behooves us to produce proper guidance that we can communicate to them. However I really think we should and can solve this just by hacker power and some consensus. > (b) p5p should finally bite the bullet and write the spec for "minimal > perl" (whatever we finally think that is) and we should then offer > that to packagers as a sanctioned minimal distribution as a compromise > to response (a). We should also be clear about binary package naming > -- i.e. a minimal perl should not be packaged as "perl". Absolutely agree. This is the productive path. Lets get our house in order before we complain about others. > Ideally, would also modify the release tools to begin releasing > "perl-minimal-5.X.Y" tarballs as well as "perl-5.X.Y" tarballs. > Assuming we don't take months arguing, I think (b) is feasible in time > for Perl 5.16. Agree too. Cheers, Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next