Packaging CPAN modules for Fedora, the Oslo QA Hackathon, CPAN::Porters

[Emmanuel Seyman]

* Ralf Corsepius [07/03/2008 10:53] :
>
> To put it bluntly: Perl-dists in Fedora are more or less community-only
> maintained, i.e. inclusion of perl-dists in Fedora is more or less
> community demand-driven => There is little demand for these remaining
> 12000 packages, probably because hardly anybody needs them.

I've got a handful of Perl modules that I've rolled into rpms and I
seriously doubt I'm the only one. How does one ask for a perl module
to be packaged ?

> > >  - Think about the licenses you apply. Write Free software.
> > 
> > Do you have examples you encountered where it is not so on CPAN?
> I don't have a concrete example at hand, but there have been plenty of
> such cases.

The RPM2 module took a long time to package because its license was
unclear (see bug #184530 for details). perl-Log-Dispatch-FileRotate had
a similar issue (bug #171640).

search.cpan.org always calls a module's licence as "Unknown" no matter
how clearly the licence is in the source code itself.

> You might not be aware about it, but there are people who considers the
> original "Artistic" license to be non-free (One of these groups is the
> FSF: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)

To be fair, this page calls Artistic too vague to be qualified as free (I
presume this means it's equally too vague to be qualified as non-free).

Both the clarified AL and AL 2.0 are qualified as free and GPL-compatible.

Emmanuel