Quotes of the week

When a git user runs into a problem, they look at the tools they have on hand and ask, “how can I combine these ideas to solve my problem?” When a mercurial user runs into a problem, they look at the problem and ask, “what code can I write to work around this?” They are very different approaches that may end up at the same place, but follow alternate routes.

I therefore suggest two responses:

(a) Either Perl 5 Porters (i.e. Rik as Pumpking) or TPF should contact Fedora/Redhat packagers and inform them of our concerns. I'm not saying that TPF should slap them with a "cease and desist" (though that would certainly be emotionally satisfying), but I do think we should "officially" raise concerns that splitting out core libraries is not viewed as acceptable by upstream and that we do not feel it is in the spirit of the license.

(b) p5p should finally bite the bullet and write the spec for "minimal perl" (whatever we finally think that is) and we should then offer that to packagers as a sanctioned minimal distribution as a compromise to response (a). We should also be clear about binary package naming -- i.e. a minimal perl should not be packaged as "perl".