Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2010
* Jan Dubois <jand@activestate.com> [2010-04-08 19:45]: > I don't quite understand how this separate package is any > different from a Task::Batteries package on CPAN (or > Bundle::Batteries if you want to specify exact version numbers > for all components Right, the point is to release-engineer the overall package, much like p5p does for the current perl core, so it would have to be a Bundle rather than a Task. Theoretically, yes, it is equivalent with a Bundle, and I suppose there’s no reason it couldn’t have an alternate existence as such. I can well imagine that someone will write a bit of code to generate the batteries package from a Bundle or maybe vice versa. The reasons not to use that as its primary form for consumers aren’t technical, just practical and psychological. The purely psychological reason is simply the effect of the existence and endorsement of a tarball like this. Other parts of this effect derive from the practical reasons. One of those reason, you already mentioned: > [Bundles] might run into further issues with the plans for > pruning CPAN of old releases). More reasons include the fact that it’s much easier for vendors to create source packages for their OSes if they can script them to download a tarball and munge its contents rather than having to have a working perl on the system and then script special APIs into doing what they want. Remember that the creators *and the advanced users* of these packages are sysadmin type people, not Perl experts. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next