From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j4I9ubNH022468 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:56:37 GMT Received: from mails.dtic.mil ([131.84.1.19]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DYLIA-0003Lt-8i for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Wed, 18 May 2005 09:56:42 +0000 Received: from sys947.dtic.mil (sys947.dtic.mil [131.84.90.47]) by mails.dtic.mil (8.11.7p1+Sun/Oct04cac) with ESMTP id j4I9ugc03751 for ; Wed, 18 May 2005 05:56:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Cummings To: gentoo-dev Subject: [gentoo-dev] ARCH keywording for g-cpan? Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 05:56:41 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1856971.79NJXFMRk2"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200505180556.41513.mcummings@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 8968bfbd-9538-455f-b961-0af88a1ec56b X-Archives-Hash: dfe790b5ac48869c00837ba18df8357f --nextPart1856971.79NJXFMRk2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline This is geared mostly towards arch devs, but I'm open to any comments :) A new version of g-cpan is about a week away. Lot of feature additions,=20 upgrades, code revisions (wouldn't recommend diff'ing the current to the ne= w=20 because I know there's only a few lines in common). It's still 100% perl (i= n=20 fact, the old version was only 95%, so that's another improvement - no more= =20 system calls, ick), and the big reason for even going down the road of a=20 rewrite was to add support for the intended split of dev-perl into new,=20 smaller, manageable(!) categories. In the past, g-cpan was lumped in with portage, so it received all of the=20 keyword bliss of portage. When it was initially split from portage it also= =20 inherited that keyword batch, since the version in the split and the versio= n=20 in the current portage were identical. But herein lies my dilemma. While 10= 0%=20 perl code means there ~shouldn't~ be any issues on any platform that can=20 install perl, I don't want to tick any arch's off by unmasking en masse.=20 Would you all prefer a bug with recommended tests for the new version? Do y= ou=20 all even care? :) Let me know, on list, off list, just don't call me late a= t=20 night, it makes the wife wonder. Mike =2D-=20 =2D----o()o--------------------------------------------- Michael Cummings | #gentoo-dev, #gentoo-perl Gentoo Perl Dev | on irc.freenode.net=20 =2D----o()o--------------------------------------------- --nextPart1856971.79NJXFMRk2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCixFZq1ztTp5/Ti4RAhnwAKC0UIPZUY6Rmly41P8fl9TA9dD81gCfS4HD AqXqbJJtqNwJfX4PNLMzcsY= =MCOx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1856971.79NJXFMRk2-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list