> I'm really considering rejecting this module just for being
> crappy:
>
> * the documentation doesn't really describe the behaviour,
> since it claims that it will fall back to the defaults if ENV{PAGER}
> is unusable, which is simply not true, it will only fall back if
> ENV{PAGER} is undefined.
> * Doing the whole PAGER detection in BEGIN is also not the smartest idea
> ever...
> * Same goes for saving it in ENV instead of the actual objects...
> * "#Some platforms don't do -x so we use -e" What crappy platforms are those and
> why not just find them out via $^O or something?
> * Ignores /usr/bin/pager
> * "eval "require $class"; $class->new($_[0], $class);" -- uh, sure, that's surely
> not gonna die in the second statement if the eval failed...
> * The package should recommend "less" since that is not Essential
> * "do{ warn -x $ENV{PAGER} ?" sure, lets us ignore all that stuff we did with split
> and not using -x...
> ...

> are there any chances to get the new libio-socket-ssl-perl from sid into
> lenny before release? After which period of time of being in sid do
> packages automatically enter testing?

> [ I am adding a Cc: to the debian-perl list, as the PET wizards live
> there and might have a say on this. Also, because the pkg-perl group
> has some packages which could be moved into a packages-wip
> directory, cleaning up our main stats? ]
>
> This thread starts at [1].
>
> Antonio Terceiro dijo [Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 01:15:50PM -0300]:

>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was just wondering: since our QA report tool [1] supports listing
>> packages not in the repository yet as "work in progress" [2], why don't we
>> remove the packages-wip/ directory from our repository?
>>
>> This would have IMO the following advantages:
>>
>> * the WIP packages would appear in the QA report and we would be
>> more aware of their status
>> * less clutter in our repository ...

>> pkg-ruby extras uses packages-wip for things that have started moving,
>> but are still not good enough for upload. Those are... well, somehow
>> out of PET's scope, IMHO (although telling us about new versions could
>> be good).
>>
>> What pkg-ruby-extras regards as 'work in progress' is packages that,
>> in their version in SVN, have an UNRELEASED distribution.

>
> You mean pkg-perl here, right?

> /libsort-naturally-perl_1.02-1_i386.changes is already present on target host:
> libsort-naturally-perl_1.02-1_all.deb
> Either you already uploaded it, or someone else came first.
> Job libsort-naturally-perl_1.02-1_i386.changes removed.

> [ I am adding a Cc: to the debian-perl list, as the PET wizards live
> there and might have a say on this. Also, because the pkg-perl group
> has some packages which could be moved into a packages-wip
> directory, cleaning up our main stats? ]

> I do think packages-wip is a good thing to have. Maybe it would be
> better to "export" the idea to other groups, and add support for it in
> PET, just as an extra section?