[aur-general] Perl core modules in the AUR

[John D Jones III]

On 02/17/14 16:32, Jason St. John wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Is there any reason to keep AUR packages for Perl core modules? The
> only reason I can think of is if there is an important bug fix or
> feature addition that has not made it into the latest Perl release
> yet, but I'm guessing this doesn't happen very often.
>
> Should _all_ AUR packages for Perl core modules be deleted or should
> only AUR packages where the latest version on CPAN is <= the provides
> list for the 'perl' package in [core] be deleted? If so, should I/we
> just send an email to this list, as usual, for all of these packages?
>
> Jason
>

Jason:
Well it depends on the core module. Certain ones like: CPANPLUS for 
instance as well as some of it's dependencies, warn loudly about 
CPANPLUS being removed from CORE in an up coming version of Perl and to 
install from CPAN. I have a few I maintain for that reason, so when that 
Perl version hits the Core repo, they're already there and won't break 
pplz code. These cases are cases where we want them there.

On the other hand, once a module that was not in CORE on older versions 
become CORE modules, I believe that the corresponding AUR Package should 
be removed. I've lamented a few times about packages like 
Catalyst::Runtime that complain about needing a newer module than what's 
available in CORE, I've debated seeing about submitting these new 
versions; the time or two I've tried, I've been staunchly rejected but 
the AUR uploader. Thankfully this is rare, and it's usually a module in 
Community, where one can just mark that package out of date.

I've tried to be vigilant about the CORE modules that are warning loudly 
about being removed from CORE and getting an AUR PKGBUILD up as quickly 
as possible; This is the only viable argument for CORE modz in AUR as 
far as I'm concerned.

-- 
Thanks,
John D Jones III
UNIX Zealot; Perl Lover
unixgeek1972 at gmail.com
jnbek1972 at gmail.com
http://zoelife4u.org/