Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail addresses
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:47:14 -0400 David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andy Armstrong wrote: Generally, I think these kinds of things get handled by the Perl NOC team. (http://noc.perl.org) Email Ask Hansen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, I've been looking for the same information for a long time. Now I know it's the Perl NOC Team that is in charge of it. Should'nt this information be published on the websites? Or is there any reason that prevents us from doing this? -- imacat ^_*' [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.txt Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman's Voice http://www.wov.idv.tw/ TLUG List Manager http://www.linux.org.tw/mailman/listinfo/tlug pgpzQz7HQQbmB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Give up your modules!
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No names, but if you happen to be sitting on a module which other people depend on and you're not going to fix bugs, give up the module, offer someone co-maintainership or figure out *something* which gives users a way out. I realize that not everyone has a pile of free time to constantly upgrade and maintain modules, but if it's something widely used and you don't have time for it, isn't the responsible thing to find a way to get those bug fixes out there? Cheers, In fact, there are 2 modules that frustrats me from not maintaining for a long time: Dan Sully Crypt-Cracklib 0.01 since 1998-11-27 http://search.cpan.org/dist/Crypt-Cracklib/ Rafael R. Sevilla Crypt-Rijndael 0.05 since 2001-09-17 http://search.cpan.org/dist/Crypt-Rijndael/ I was using them on my web system. Earlier this year I upgraded my system into x86_64, and they are not working anymore. I have submitted failed test reports, rt bug reports, and personal mails, but no response since. I even wonder whether their registered e-mail addresses are still reachable. For Crypt-Rijndael, I can use Crypt-Rijndael_PP instead. But for Crypt-Cracklib I have completely no idea but to disable that part of my code. Consider the fact that it is not updated for 8 years! But this ain't right. Crypt-Cracklib is critical to security and user management, Crypt-Rijndael is the current US governmental standard encryption algorithm, and x86_64 is the contemporary architech. It's just not right that they don't work. I'm not a skilled C/XS programmer, or I would consider taking over them. Can anybody have advice on this issue? -- imacat ^_*' [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: http://www.imacat.idv.tw/me/pgpkey.txt Tavern IMACAT's http://www.imacat.idv.tw/ Woman's Voice http://www.wov.idv.tw/ TLUG List Manager http://www.linux.org.tw/mailman/listinfo/tlug pgpF7OehoqhCj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Give up your modules!
- Original Message From: imacat [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:19:15 -0500 Andy Lester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Re-making my mental note to transcribe Stop saying 'script') Sorry I might be off-topic, but why Stop saying 'script'? I have searched the google and found nothing on this. I thought script is the formal term to referring them from the beginning, and throughout my documentation. If someone could provide more information or relative resources on this issue, I would be very appreciated. Because Perl programs are programs. I get tired of people dismissing what I do for a living as 'mere scripting' even though there's a darn good chance I've worked on systems (in Perl) far larger than many which they have. By referring to Perl programs as scripts, even if they're short programs, we reinforce the false notion that Perl is some toy language. Heck, if I found out a C programmer hacked out a quick 50 line program to solve a problem, should I just dismiss that program as a script? Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book -- http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI -- http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/
Re: Give up your modules!
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:52:26PM +0800, imacat wrote: But this ain't right. Crypt-Cracklib is critical to security and user management, Crypt-Rijndael is the current US governmental standard encryption algorithm, and x86_64 is the contemporary architech. It's just not right that they don't work. What would you consider to be the right that should be happening here? Answering that will make answering your next question easier: I'm not a skilled C/XS programmer, or I would consider taking over them. Can anybody have advice on this issue? Nicholas Clark
Re: Give up your modules!
On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:52 AM, imacat wrote: Ovid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No names, but if you happen to be sitting on a module which other people depend on and you're not going to fix bugs, give up the module, offer someone co-maintainership or figure out *something* which gives users a way out. I realize that not everyone has a pile of free time to constantly upgrade and maintain modules, but if it's something widely used and you don't have time for it, isn't the responsible thing to find a way to get those bug fixes out there? Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I think the author has the prerogative to lose interest, or die, or run out of time, or whatever, without being branded as evil by the community. The fact that they made their contribution in the first place, and people found it useful, seems like it should be honored rather than vilified. That said, there ought to be a way for the community to move forward without having the original author be the bottleneck. With open- source licenses, there's explicitly a way for someone else in the community to pick up the reins and release a derivative of the original code without seeking the permission of the original author: JFDI. Change the namespace if you must. People will cope, it's better than having no new release at all. Having a name and shame mentality about this is IMO wrong. Having old dead code out there with no recent releases is as much the fault of the community as it is of the original author - the one person in the scenario who actually released code. But this ain't right. Crypt-Cracklib is critical to security and user management, Crypt-Rijndael is the current US governmental standard encryption algorithm, and x86_64 is the contemporary architech. It's just not right that they don't work. I'm not a skilled C/XS programmer, or I would consider taking over them. Can anybody have advice on this issue? Yeah: find a skilled C/XS programmer and fix it. What other solution could there possibly be? If the maintainers are as unresponsive as you seem to be saying, consider them dead. They may even *be* dead. But their code should serve as a damn good blueprint for you to get something working. -Ken
