Front page | perl.dist |
Postings from January 2005
Re: mini-maxi dists
From: Gabor Szabo
January 10, 2005 00:44
Re: mini-maxi dists
Message ID: Pine.LNX.email@example.com
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005, Jim Cromie wrote:
> 2b. standardperl would use the CPAN version of the dual-life modules.
> the objective here would be to include CPAN.pm or CPANPLUS.pm,
> and to include either a repository tree (with all the authors/?/??/*
> intermediate directories) which contains the current-coredist tarballs,
> or (simpler) a single directory with all those dual-life packages in their
> tarball form.
OK, can someone please explain what is the story with the dual-life
modules ? As I understand these have both CPAN and perl-x.x.x versions.
What is the difference ? What is the process that happens today when
the autor updates his CPAN version ? What if the porters change something
in the module ?
Which modules are dual-life ?
In this maxiPerl thing I started I take a standard perl,
unzip it, create a subdir called CPAN (clever name, eg ? :)
and copy the unzipped versions of the tarballs of the modules.
moving to at authors/?/??/* structure might make sense. I put it on
the think about list.
> 2a. (NB - this happens before 2b above, but is easier to clarify with above
> previously stated)
> bareperl-overlay.tgz would be the modules that are not yet dual-lifed (sic).
> Id expect it to be ext/* and lib/* only, and only part of them. One would
> expect bareperl to shrink, as more core-dist modules are dual-lifed.
> 2c. now all the maxi-varieties are simple to package, essentially
> repeating 2b with different lists. They differ by being separable
> from the source tree of standard-perl.
I see you are on the same hook. ;)
> Obviously the same mechanism should support both in-tree and out-tree
> bundles. out-of-tree is essential so that several maxi-dists can package
> the same module. We dont want everyone squabbling about where DBI belongs.
> Certainly some common subsets are apparent, or will emerge.
What do you mean by in-tree and out-tree ?
> The re-packaging of tarballs within tarballs looks a bit silly,
> but it has an important function; it means that packages on CPAN
> are EXACTLY whats in a maxi-dist, which should lower the barrier
> to banks/etc taking them piecemeal; theyre already in an 'approved'
> package, with verifiably identical MD5 checksums.
I am not sure if that's important as the whole maxiPerl package
will have its own checksum and it need to be trusted.
But if the package looks like this
Then we also keep the exact same perl distros as were created by the
pumking with its original checksum.
> 3. Phalanx, CPANTS
> Phalanx-100 sure looks like a strong candidate for one of the maxi-dists.
> Devel-Cover affords some opportunity to put numbers on quality,
> leading to possibility of q50, q60 grades on maxi-dists.
> Forex, a maxi-web-q90-dist would have all web-related distributions
> that pass a coverage threshold.
> Yes, its putting too much faith in numbers, but at least thats clear from
> the arbitrary q-factor in dist-name.
> CPANTS is probably worth a mention - there, check that off.
I don't think we can use Coverage as indicator, CPANTS might
have better chances as it will, at some point, weight in
lots of various factors, maybe including the Coverage report.
> 4. somewhere along the line, these banks gotta just suck up
> the fact that they could pay IBM to bless some subset of CPAN.
> Id imagine that IBM would outsource some of it to authors and