Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2003
Re: Hidden dependencies?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Sam Vilain
Date:
October 2, 2003 04:14
Subject:
Re: Hidden dependencies?
Message ID:
200310012203.53151.sam@vilain.net
On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:37, schwern@pobox.com wrote;
> Producing a META.yml file from which some external party generates
> an rpm file is a much better approach than Perl shipping with a
> spec file. Why? Because from that META.yml you should (in
> theory) be able to extract the information for any other packaging
> system. rpm, dpkg, Sun, etc... Thus removing a Redhat bias in
> Perl and more importantly dumping any responsibility for p5p to
> maintain other people's packaging files.
I disagree. The Perl community consists of people using Dpkg, ports,
RPM, System V package format, PPM, etc. There is scope in that to
produce reference packages control files for various package formats.
Personally I think all software should accept such control scripts for
inclusion into their source distributions. They're extremely small,
and a part of the software that is needed for seamless installation by
the user / automated utilities. Compared to maintaining C
compatibility, maintaining the package control directories is a
doddle.
The joy of being able to download a source distribution and just type
"dpkg-buildpackage -b -uc -rfakeroot" in its source, and have it work,
is almost matched by the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing you can *both*
use new software, _and_ keep everything on your system installed via
its Packaging system.
I agree with you that going from META.yml to the package control files
would be neat. However IMHO the output should be included with the
source distribution, such as "configure" is included with GNU source
tarballs. Or done by Module::Build, etc.
--
Sam Vilain, sam@vilain.net
The sage does not distinguish between himself and the world;
The needs of other people are as his own.
- Tao Te Ching chapter 49
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next