On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:57:23PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 11:52:21AM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > > I think I prefer B - it should make the transition less painful in the > > long run. > > That one is also fine by me. > > > We should also try and file bugs against packages using these modules, > > if we can, once the separate packages are available. > > Grep results so far on my rebuild logs of 1800 or so packages show > nothing for Shell and Pod::Plainer, and just > > Switch > libhtml-mason-perl_1.44-1 > > Class::ISA > libcgi-application-extra-plugin-bundle-perl_0.1 > libcgi-application-perl_4.31-1 > libclass-insideout-perl_1.10-1 > libclass-meta-perl_0.63-1 > libclass-virtual-perl_0.06-2 > libdata-treedumper-perl_0.37-1 > libemail-abstract-perl_3.001-1 > libmasonx-interp-withcallbacks-perl_1.18-1 > libparams-callbackrequest-perl_1.19-1 > libtemplate-declare-perl_0.43-1 > > so this doesn't look like a huge issue.
Indeed. Instinct tells me we shouldn't bother packaging Shell or Pod::Plainer, and possibly not Switch either (a quick inspection reveals that it's only used by a test suite which will skip the test if it's not loadable). -- Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/ PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
