develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from April 2002

Re: Save a few hunderd kilobytes or a few hundred perl users?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Johnny Lam
April 30, 2002 14:37
Re: Save a few hunderd kilobytes or a few hundred perl users?
Message ID:
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:55:25AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
> Maybe python and ruby should go for that approach as well and I see 
> that's the way to go -- for ports.  We still need perl to build FreeBSD 
> and we got to come up with a correct soultion -- not only politically 
> but also technically.  Your current soultion is, to say the least yet 
> with all due respect, incorrect in both criteria.

For the benefit of the FreeBSD users, I will reiterate a point I made on
a different thread:

I think Perl should be broken into two pieces: a "miniperl" distribution
that is called "Perl" and a separate "Standard Perl Module Library"
distribution.  They would be versioned separately so what's considered part
of the core Perl language isn't confused with what version of or
other random module is included with a Perl distribution.  It's clear that
the modules evolve much faster than Perl's release cycle, so the Perl
Library distribution could simply be on its release cycle.

NetBSD (I) used to separate out Perl into a separate "miniperl" package +
extensions, but I gave up on doing this because it was just getting to be
a maintainence headache -- with every Perl release, I had to wade through
a different module list to see what should be removed and what should stay
and I just got fed up with the extra work.  This is a lose for some of our
platforms that just don't have a lot of disk space to spare, e.g.
NetBSD/hpcmips.  With a Perl + Perl Library setup, we could more easily
control via a package system which modules are installed in a simpler,
more additive way.


	-- Johnny Lam <> <>

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About