Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2003
Re: Hidden dependencies?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Nicholas Clark
Date:
October 1, 2003 11:44
Subject:
Re: Hidden dependencies?
Message ID:
20031001194354.H34877@plum.flirble.org
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 11:57:26AM -0400, Aaron Sherman wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 01:57, Slaven Rezic wrote:
>
> > I'm still not convinced that it's the responsibility of the perl
> > authors to help the rpm build tool. Maybe one could provide a META.yml
> > file for perl (including
>
> This is a head-in-the-sand approach (as noted before). Perl will be (is)
> considered broken on systems that use RPM (and that list grows with some
> regularity) because it does not play nicely with external dependency
> systems.
Unusually for me I have an impolite and undiplomatic opinion on this subject,
which you are perfectly free to regard as "head in the sand":
I don't care
If someone wants to provide a RPM spec file *and a way to keep it up to
date from the MANIFEST* fine - patches welcome.
(but it would only get into maint via blead)
> As with every large project at this point, I think Perl should have a
> spec file as part of the distribution. Building dependency lists
I don't use any RPM based systems. I know many people do. More people
use Windows than Linux. Maybe we should package perl as a PPM.
We are upstream. Spec files are what OS maintainers exist for.
And in general they do a better job than we ever could, because they
work daily dealing with their OS's packaging system.
It is not a heuristic dependency checking of p5p's making that is causing
all this grief.
Nicholas Clark
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next