On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 06:38:02AM +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote:
Would this one be the same for the development (soon to be 9) version?
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/i386/os/repodata/
Yes, this is the development branch, aka rawhide, which will be made
into Fedora
Hi,
about a month ago I wrote that I would like to improve the reporting on
http://www.szabgab.com/distributions/ by including recent releases of Fedora.
(and Red Hat as well)
I asked on this list how can I get the list of all the packages included in
Fedora N? Ralf has pointed me to some page:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:46:35PM +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote:
Now I am here in Oslo, the QA Hackathon where I would like to work on this
is going to start tomorrow evening so I started to look at this.
The above page only gives me a list of perl package names. There is no
version number of
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:19 PM, Jan Pazdziora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:46:35PM +0300, Gabor Szabo wrote:
Now I am here in Oslo, the QA Hackathon where I would like to work on this
is going to start tomorrow evening so I started to look at this.
The above
On 11 Mar 2008 14:18:07 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DC == Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DC I've always had a sneaking suspicion that what I've got are good
DC enough for me, but not for Fedora's repositories.
Well, modern cpanspec generates pretty good
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 20:55 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
So if you do find a module with problematic licenses it would be great
if you could check if CPANTS http://cpants.perl.org/ has also caught
that issue.
To be brutally honest, Artistic 1.0 is a problematic license. It's been
poorly
GS == Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GS So if you do find a module with problematic licenses it would be
GS great if you could check if CPANTS http://cpants.perl.org/ has
GS also caught that issue.
This is good news; Perl modules have often been a source of licensing
trouble due to
On 12 Mar 2008 14:08:36 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GS == Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GS So if you do find a module with problematic licenses it would be
GS great if you could check if CPANTS http://cpants.perl.org/ has
GS also caught that issue.
This
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 09:26:41PM +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
What others would you include in that list?
The full list is on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-19fc3ef10add085a28cb06784dc34ef8b05a9bd6
--
Pat
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
GS == Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
GS What others would you include in that list?
The current set of approved licenses should be at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing (which isn't responding for me
at the moment, so I can't cut'n'paste for you).
- J
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 07:34 +, Dave Cross wrote:
I also have this problem. Not many days go by without me needing a CPAN
module that isn't pre-packaged into an RPM.
In those cases I often find that cpanspec works to whip up a quick RPM
that that I can use. I don't
DC == Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DC I've always had a sneaking suspicion that what I've got are good
DC enough for me, but not for Fedora's repositories.
Well, modern cpanspec generates pretty good specs. Generally what you
need to do is verify the license (which unfortunately seems
On 11 Mar 2008 14:18:07 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DC == Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
DC I've always had a sneaking suspicion that what I've got are good
DC enough for me, but not for Fedora's repositories.
Well, modern cpanspec generates pretty good
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 07:34:27AM +, Dave Cross wrote:
In those cases I often find that cpanspec works to whip up a quick RPM that
that I can use. I don't know how many of those automatically generated RPMs
would reach the standards required for inclusion in Fedora, but I'm slowly
Steven Pritchard wrote:
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 07:34:27AM +, Dave Cross wrote:
http://rpm.mag-sol.com/
I just took a quick look at that, and I noticed that a *bunch* of those
modules are already available in Fedora...
Yep. I noticed that over the weekend as well. They were created
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Dave Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven Pritchard wrote:
On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 07:34:27AM +, Dave Cross wrote:
http://rpm.mag-sol.com/
I just took a quick look at that, and I noticed that a *bunch* of those
modules are already
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 09:37 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
Hi,
I see on http://perl-qa.hexten.net/wiki/index.php/OsloQAWorkshop2008
that probably non of you is going to participate. That's a pity.
Anyway I am trying to setup some documentation/system that might help
all the distros to include
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 09:37 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
Hi,
I see on http://perl-qa.hexten.net/wiki/index.php/OsloQAWorkshop2008
that probably non of you is going to participate. That's a pity.
Anyway I am
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 10:38 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 09:37 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
Hi,
I see on http://perl-qa.hexten.net/wiki/index.php/OsloQAWorkshop2008
that probably non of
* Ralf Corsepius [07/03/2008 10:53] :
To put it bluntly: Perl-dists in Fedora are more or less community-only
maintained, i.e. inclusion of perl-dists in Fedora is more or less
community demand-driven = There is little demand for these remaining
12000 packages, probably because hardly anybody
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 11:16:14AM +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Ralf Corsepius [07/03/2008 10:53] :
To put it bluntly: Perl-dists in Fedora are more or less community-only
maintained, i.e. inclusion of perl-dists in Fedora is more or less
community demand-driven = There is little
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 10:38 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 09:37 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
Hi,
I see
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
search.cpan.org always calls a module's licence as Unknown no matter
how clearly the licence is in the source code itself.
That's no longer true. See, for example:
http://search.cpan.org/dist/Symbol-Approx-Sub/
Which includes Perl (Artistic and GPL).
I'm pretty
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 17:19 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 10:38 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 17:19 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
IMHO there is very little communication between the distro communities and
the Perl community. Some Debian people have started a dialog on the last
YAPC in Vienna and I wish we can increase that even further.
The QA
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 17:19 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Ralf Corsepius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 10:38 +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at
Gabor Szabo wrote:
Lately I have also arrived to the conclusion that if you are not
interested in bleeding edge Perl development then you should use only
the modules supplied by your OS or Perl vendor. For that having only
1000 modules is way too low.
A couple of years ago I reached the same
27 matches
Mail list logo
