Hi Dominic,
Apologies for misunderstanding - for some reason I misread your message like
if you were asking why issue was not reported upstream in first place.
My bad, perhaps I was tired when I read it. Sorry.
> It's okay to develop and test against the perl in Debian, but working
> with upstream is an important part of the way that the perl packaging
> team works. At minimum, a patch (which is not Debian specific - ie
> goes in fixes/ rather than debian/) should be forwarded upstream, and
> in many cases it is appropriate for it to be fixed in upstream
> blead/modules releases (in the case of dual lived modules). Given we
> have more than 50 patches at the moment, this discipline ensures that
> the patch maintenance burden doesn't become too great. You should find
> that all the patches in fixes have URLs to bug trackers or upstream
> VCSes with further details of the change, which can be very useful
> when importing a new upstream release.
Thank you for explanation.
I understand the importance of working with upstream (they are friends of
ours) and I routinely forward and tag patches for packages I maintain.
> Filing problems upstream also gives valuable feedback from those who
> are closest to the code (and given the size of the codebase, we can't
> all be experts in every area of the code).
Indeed. I wouldn't do such thing as refusing to report bug upstream, once
again sorry for misunderstanding.
> Having said all that, I know that Russ has acked your patch to podlators,
> so I'm happy to apply it. But it should still be filed at rt.cpan.org
> as a record.
The issue is now reported:
https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=75099
Thank you very much and sorry for delay.
All the best,
Dmitry.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
