X-Operating-System: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 X-Machine: sym2 x86_64 X-Editor: GNU Emacs 23.4.1 Face: 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 Organization: DeuxChevaux.org -- The Citroën 2CV Database
Control: tag -1 + moreinfo Hi Karen and Gioele, On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 03:15:28PM -0700, Karen Etheridge wrote: > hi Axel, I saw your commit: > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-perl/packages/libdatetime-astro-sunrise-perl.git/commit/?id=fda7a52 > > I would suggest that this distribution not be packaged at all, since it was > never made into a stable release. This distribution looks more complete and > supported: https://metacpan.org/pod/DateTime::Event::Sunrise You are not the first one to notice: https://bugs.debian.org/645828 That bug report though does not take into account that the initial team member who packaged libdatetime-astro-sunrise-perl initially deliberately has chosen DateTime::Astro::Sunrise over DateTime::Event::Sunrise based on the provided feature set, i.e. the superiority of DateTime::Event::Sunrise seems questionable. See line 57 of https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-perl/packages/libdatetime-astro-sunrise-perl.git/tree/debian/changelog#n57 Additionally popcon (popularity statistics) are now that low (but not high either): https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=libdatetime-astro-sunrise-perl We should though check if "the newer DateTime::Event::Sunrise returns a DateTime::Set that is not compatible with the current 0.25 release of DateTime::Set" is still the case as the report in #645828 also mentions. (I doubt that this issue still exists. I fear it's vice versa nowadays. ;-) > Also, "sport" should be "support". :) No, "support" is not the semantics I wanted to use. I had these semantics in mind: https://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=1123114&idForum=2&lang=de&lp=ende On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 03:17:05PM -0700, Karen Etheridge wrote: > ...indeed, because the very same author wrote DateTime::Event::Sunrise, so > it should be considered the natural successor: > https://metacpan.org/release/RKHILL/DateTime-Event-Sunrise-0.0501 On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:24:02 +0000, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > I meant something like making libdatetime-astro-sunrise-perl a empty > transitional package that just depends on > libdatetime-event-sunrise-perl. But they have different APIs, so a transitional package IMHO doesn't make sense. Since it hasn't been mentioned yet in #645828: libdatetime-event-sunrise-perl has been packaged in the meanwhile, too. So currently both modules are available in Debian. I also wonder if #645828 is fixed with libdatetime-event-sunrise-perl being in Debian or if #645828 is only fixed when libdatetime-astro-sunrise-perl has been removed from the archive. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
