[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Getting there -- bootstrapping OpenSRF Client problem

[Mike Rylander]

On 12/28/06, Edward Summers <ehs at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Mike Rylander wrote:
> > Just so everyone knows, you MUST still follow the instructions on the
> > wiki, preferably derived from the Debian, Ubuntu or Gentoo docs, for
> > installing Perl dependencies, especially for the MARC::* related
> > modules and Javascript::Spidermonkey.  These bundles will not include
> > the correct versions of the MARC modules, as their maintainers have
> > not released updated versions, and it can not automate the
> > installation of JS::SM without a good bit of work, because E4X support
> > is required in Evergreen.
>
> Mike, is there any value in considering forking MARC::Record at this
> point?

My opinion is no, or at least not enough value to justify it
currently.  An easy installation will be good, but a "one click
install" is not of enough value to fork a well-know package set (or to
perform any other pain causing actions, at least today).  Also, the
MARC::Record stuff is /not/ the only wrinkle -- just a big one.  :)

My concern is that the fork would end up being used in a small
minority of projects, possibly /only/ in Evergreen and Koha, which
will enable the fork to drift from the "official" MARC perl stuff,
marginalizing it even more.  If the original packages are "good
enough" (even if they really aren't for anything complex) and
developers have them installed in their existing dev environment then
there's not pressure to change...

>
> I've just written an email to Mike O'Regan who currently holds the
> reins on MARC::Record at CPAN to see if he has any interest in
> keeping it maintained. If not I know brian d foy (CPAN admin) has
> suggested that he could reassign privileges to a new maintainer. If a
> fork is out of the question would you guys be interested in
> maintaining the module?
>

I'm not going to raise my hand for this one just yet ;) ... but if
Mike O'Regan doesn't want to maintain the distro (or doesn't respond),
then we can take it on.  It's preferable to forking by a large margin,
IMHO.

My opinion (and suggestion) is that we wait to see what Mike O says,
and if there's nothing in a few weeks (we have plenty of time, and
it's vacation season) or he doesn't feel like following through with
maintainership then move toward talking to brian d foy.  Thoughts?

Before any forced maintainer-swap happens (and not until we've
collectively decided that Evergreen (and Koha?) needs it), I think we
should put out the word on perl4lib/code4lib, let others know what
we're planning to do ... just to smooth the way.  More thoughts?

Ed, thanks a lot for grabbing the bull*&#$ by the horns ... ;)

> //Ed
>


-- 
Mike Rylander
mrylander at gmail.com
GPLS -- PINES Development
Database Developer
http://open-ils.org