On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 08:29:48AM +0100, Frank Lin PIAT wrote: > Why (perl) pip popcon suddenly[1] reached 68? Is it due to the new > version, or is it due to people installing it by mistake?
The Debian 'pip' package from 2002 was not the same program as today's 'pip'; that one eventually got removed from the archive. So the popcon numbers are not directly comparable. Regarding whether we should package these tools at all, I could note that the Perl policy makes provisions for users who install modules from CPAN [0], and this seems like just a special case to me. [0] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/perl-policy/ch-site.html So I think we need to keep both tools, and should focus on resolving the overlapping binary names. Regards, -- Tim Retout <t...@retout.co.uk> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
