On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 07:46:23AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > On 14515 March 1977, Josh Triplett wrote: > >> Longer version: I think we should patch the tools first and /if/ we are > >> in time before the release, we can add the sections. To my knowledge, > >> there are basically no ill effects of tools knowing sections that does > >> not yet exist. > > That's a good idea; thank you. I'll start working on those patches. > > While you are in there, there is #816693, also I'm unsure (and offline > atm) how many perl6 packages we currently have.
As far as I can tell, we have 2 such packages: perl6 and perl6-panda. We have several packages named libperl6-*, but reading their descriptions, they actually provide modules for perl5 that emulate perl6 functionality, so the package names seem incorrect. Python 2 and 3 packages both use the "python" section, and distinguish packages by package name (python-* versus python3-*); might it make sense to just use the "perl" section, and distinguish modules for perl5 versus perl6 by package name? I don't have any objections to such a section, but at this point I'm already halfway through writing patches adding the "rust" and "javascript" sections. > And maybe to take suggestion from #802488 in mind. Already done. > And thanks for the work on it. Thank you for supporting it. - Josh Triplett
