Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#17727 - [perl-cpanplus-pacman] is obsolete
Attached to Project:
Community Packages
Opened by Caleb Cushing (xenoterracide) - Wednesday, 06 January 2010, 21:38 GMT
Last edited by Dan Griffiths (Ghost1227) - Tuesday, 12 January 2010, 22:56 GMT
Opened by Caleb Cushing (xenoterracide) - Wednesday, 06 January 2010, 21:38 GMT
Last edited by Dan Griffiths (Ghost1227) - Tuesday, 12 January 2010, 22:56 GMT
|
Detailsperl-cpanplus-pacman (in community) Homepage URL is no longer valid and appears to not be on cpan perhaps replace with perl-cpanplus-dist-arch
|
This task depends upon
Closed by Dan Griffiths (Ghost1227)
Tuesday, 12 January 2010, 22:56 GMT
Reason for closing: Not a bug
Additional comments about closing: Since Firmicus has made it clear that the bug in question isn't a bug and he will be updating this package shortly, I think this can be marked as resolved.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010, 22:56 GMT
Reason for closing: Not a bug
Additional comments about closing: Since Firmicus has made it clear that the bug in question isn't a bug and he will be updating this package shortly, I think this can be marked as resolved.
Comment by xduugu (xduugu) -
Wednesday, 06 January 2010, 23:35 GMT
The correct url is http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=21048
Comment by Francois Charette (Firmicus) -
Thursday, 07 January 2010, 12:44 GMT
It was never intended to be on CPAN. I did not have the time to devote to it lately, but I hope to move the source code to http://projects.archlinux.org/ when I get a chance. I think the utility is usable as it is, though alternative tools may be better (or worse) in some respects. Still it is no reason to remove it i think.
Comment by Caleb Cushing (xenoterracide) -
Thursday, 07 January 2010, 15:47 GMT
I've no real opinion one way or another. but since the URL was wrong and I couldn't find it on cpan I assumed it was a vapor project. although the fact that we have 3(+?) projects for cpan -> pacman ... perhaps they should be collaborating more.