Releasing Bugzilla to CPAN

Gabor Szabo szabgab at
Wed Mar 31 05:49:25 UTC 2010

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Max Kanat-Alexander
<mkanat at> wrote:
>        Yeah, but I don't necessarily feel that a distribution method should be
> focused on (or used for the reason of) developers, when the product
> being distributed is for end users (or in our case, sysadmins who are
> mostly not developers). CPAN is mostly focused around developers because
> it 99% or more distributes only libraries, and Bugzilla isn't a library.

There are quite a number of applications on CPAN starting from small
ones such as 'ack'
via desktop applications such as Padre to some web applications.

Actually I see CPAN as the way to distribute the source code and when
it is relevant I'd recommend a separate, batteries inside or binary

>> BTW, You know you can exclude the Makefile.PL from the tarball
>> generated by your script...
>        That's a good point. I'd probably do that, but it wouldn't help for
> people who use bzr or CVS to checkout or upgrade, which is a fair number
> of people. Also, even a simple "bzr status" would show that Makefile.PL
> was missing, which would be slightly weird.

I am not sure why bzr status would show Makefile.PL is missing but I hope those
who are using Bugzilla straight from the repository know what they do.
After all,
if I understand correctly, they can easily update themselves to some very buggy
development state of the code base.


More information about the developers mailing list