Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2001
Re: The case for SDKs
From:
Peter Scott
Date:
August 4, 2001 20:07
Subject:
Re: The case for SDKs
Message ID:
4.3.2.7.2.20010804200241.00aa3320@mail.webquarry.com
At 04:42 PM 8/4/01 -0400, Chris Nandor wrote:
>In article <20010803141604.D24738@chaos.wustl.edu>,
> elaine@chaos.wustl.edu (Elaine -Hfb- Ashton) wrote:
> > Not true. A bundle can require a version on a per-module basis.
>
>A minimum version, but not a specific version. For example, the
>CPAN-reported version of DBD::mysql has been, for the last few months,
>listed as "experimental" in its docs. It doesn't build properly
>sometimes, and while it might work fine, I wouldn't want to use on a
>production system, since the README says "experimental." And in
>Slash::Bundle, I can't tell it to use a specific version, the one that
>works.
>
>I think I can put in a specific distribution path + filename, I didn't
>try yet. And I know that this is primarily the fault, in this case, of
>the author who didn't properly version his "experimental" module.
>Nevertheless, it would be nice to be able to give specific versions
>instead of just minimum ones.
You can, you just have to be a bit wordier. One of my installation bundles
contains
LDS/GD-1.18.tar.gz
for reasons that I don't need to explain :-)
>I just like Bundles because they only do the bare minimum of making
>installing a group of modules easier. I don't want cohesive interfaces
>or packages or complex relationships or competing groups of modules, I
>just want a module I happen to need, and an easy way to get it. As long
>as that stays the same or improves, I am happy. I don't think I will
>ever use SDKs.
Depends how SDKs are defined. I still want them to be bundles, just that
they reference version-specific modules as above, and each SDK bundle is
under version control. Simple and understandable, no new technology.
--
Peter Scott
Pacific Systems Design Technologies
http://www.perldebugged.com