Hi,
Axel Beckert wrote:
> > Canary::Stability is used by Schmorp's modules during configuration
> > stage to test the installed perl for compatibility with his modules.
>
> Yeah, IIRC it bails out with any perl version newer than 5.20 as
> schmorp refuses to use upstream perl 5.22 and later and only supports
> his perl5 fork called "stableperl":
>
> http://blog.schmorp.de/2015-06-06-a-stable-perl.html
>
> So I'm quite surprised to see this module packaged at all as I'd
> expect that all CPAN modules which use this module will FTBFS as soon
> as we move to perl 5.22 as currently in Experimental.
>
> So I would guess that we have to RM most of his packages.
On IRC, mst suggested another (probably less disruptive and more
diplomatic) path:
| I think the question is whether it's worth patching C::S out of all
| the relevant Makefile.PLs
|
| I think I might instead patch Stability.pm so it says "You are
| running debian perl 5.22, which the author of this module does not
| support but the debian packaging team will still intend to in spite
| of this. However, you are encouraged to consider alternatives."
[...]
| if anybody wants that text or a variant thereof to use, consider it
| under whatever open source license you like
[...]
| I think I'd go for 'keep but patch' so that people doing cpan
| installs also get a more constructive warning.
|
| however that's totally a matter of personal opinion and I'm not
| going to cry at any option, though 'keep but leave the bullshit'
| seems like the least good option albeit the easiest
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-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150805180844.go25...@sym.noone.org
