reassign 552052 perl-modules
retitle 552052 clarify perl-modules status
thanks
On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 12:57:44PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ryan Niebur ryanrya...@gmail.com writes:
Here's the explanation for why:
Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org writes:
Therefore I think that the perl/perl-modules split should be considered
an internal implementation detail of the perl source package, and other
packages should only depend on perl (or some specified versions of
perl-base, in exceptional circumstances.)
The
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:49:19 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
In fact, based on Don's concerns and the discussion on debian-devel [1]
it looks like we're going to back away from the perl+perl-modules merge.
Ok.
However, I think there is a point in discouraging direct dependencies
on perl-modules.
gregor herrmann wrote:
Ryan Niebur ryanrya...@gmail.com writes:
Here's the explanation for why:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-perl-maintainers/2009-October/026578.html
Before I do this, can I get confirmation that this is still the intention?
This was several months ago and I'm
Ryan Niebur ryanrya...@gmail.com writes:
Here's the explanation for why:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-perl-maintainers/2009-October/026578.html
Hello folks,
Before I do this, can I get confirmation that this is still the intention?
This was several months ago and I'm not sure
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 12:57:44 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ryan Niebur ryanrya...@gmail.com writes:
Here's the explanation for why:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-perl-maintainers/2009-October/026578.html
Before I do this, can I get confirmation that this is still the
Package: lintian
Version: 2.2.17
Severity: wishlist
Here's the explanation for why:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-perl-maintainers/2009-October/026578.html
--
_
Ryan Niebur
ryanrya...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
7 matches
Mail list logo
