RFS: libwhisker2-perl

Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> - -=| Deepak Tripathi, 5.08.2007 11:54 |=-
>
>> No ,This is an diferent one.
>>
>
> Won't you import it in DPG's SVN repository?
>
ok i will put it into snv repository.
>
>> PS:_ can you please sponsor it, i would be very thankful.
>>
>
> No, because I didn't review it. I am only interested in sponsoring perl
> packages, which are maintained under the group's umbrella.
>
> You're free to find other sponsors, of course.
>
>
so i think now you can sopnsor it.
>>>>> Section : interpreters
>>>>>
>> Should section be "perl" instead?
>>
>
> No comment about this?
>
ok i will do that.
> Is this a Perl module or collection of scripts? If later I thing the
> package name is inappropriate.
>
> And last, why the private reply?
>
now its not .debian-perl is added.

> - --
> Damyan Ivanov JabberID: dam.RemoveThis@jabber.minus273.org
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGtfghHqjlqpcl9jsRApd9AJ99TCGNIiWQpTBWQygQw+ZveOVt9gCgrjEh
> cushTkBs3sRL5qx1/8a4Fcw=
> =iY3b
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Thanks
Deepak


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-perl-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007, Deepak Tripathi wrote:
> Damyan Ivanov wrote:
>> You're free to find other sponsors, of course.
>
> so i think now you can sopnsor it.

I talked with Deepak on -mentors earlier about this package, and had
the following concerns which whoever ends up sponsoring it should be
aware of and either be comfortable with or require resolution of.

1. libwhisker2-perl isn't in CPAN

2. It actually installs a module called LW2.pm instead of Whisker2.pm
in the perl namespace

3. It doesn't use strict; or use warnings; and the actual coding style
of the module is needlessly opaque.

4. It likely could be entirely replaced with something that uses LWP
or similar instead of (possibly incorrect) reimplementation of the
same.

5. The only thing that uses it is nikto, and it's quite likely that
the use of LW.pm can be entirely replaced with LWP.


Don Armstrong

--
More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads.
One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.
The other, to total extinction.
Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
-- Woody Allen

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-perl-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Deepak,

On 8/4/07, Deepak Tripathi <apenguinlinux RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear mentors,
>
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libwhisker2-perl".
>

I've seen that you updated libwhisker-perl to version 2.4 which seems
wrong, as that should be libwhisker2-perl.. Or one of the two should
be deleted..

--
Martín Ferrari

Martín Ferrari wrote:
> Deepak,
>
> On 8/4/07, Deepak Tripathi <apenguinlinux DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
Hi Matrin,

it was the long discussion that which one i have to take,

see there are tow binary 1)libwhisker-perl 2)libwhisker2-perl.

yes you are right that libwhisker2-perl is a new upstream release of
libwhisker-perl "BUT"
only the nikto (upgrade version) uses libwhisker-perl thats y old or
updated libwhisker-perl has to be there.

And libwhiske2-perl is new upstream so thats y this will be treat as a
new one.

PS:- it was the long discussions with some the mentors. you can check
the threads.

Thanks
Deepak
>> Dear mentors,
>>
>> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "libwhisker2-perl".
>>
>>
>
> I've seen that you updated libwhisker-perl to version 2.4 which seems
> wrong, as that should be libwhisker2-perl.. Or one of the two should
> be deleted..
>
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Deepak Tripathi dijo [Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 04:14:44PM +0530]:
> Hi Matrin,
>
> it was the long discussion that which one i have to take,
>
> see there are tow binary 1)libwhisker-perl 2)libwhisker2-perl.
>
> yes you are right that libwhisker2-perl is a new upstream release of
> libwhisker-perl "BUT" only the nikto (upgrade version) uses
> libwhisker-perl thats y old or updated libwhisker-perl has to be
> there.
>
> And libwhiske2-perl is new upstream so thats y this will be treat as
> a new one.

Hi,

I don't see the point of packaging an old library because one program
(which is not yet part of Debian) requires it. Is the API very
different? Have you talked with Nikto's author? Why not migrating
Nikto from the Whisker to the Whisker2 API? Sure, it's more work, but
it prevents us from packaging useless and obsolete software.

--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf.DeleteThis@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org