Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2006
demerphq wrote: > On 6/20/06, Adam Kennedy <cpan@ali.as> wrote: >> chromatic wrote: >> > On Monday 19 June 2006 18:36, Chip Salzenberg wrote: >> Most of last night's discussion was about how annoying it is that so >> little of CPAN works on Windows, and a discussions about the problems of >> dependency bloat in general. > > The solution to this problem is to improve core support for OS > abstraction. While I agree in principle, I strongly disagree with some of the ideas I've seen for adding this abstraction. Frankly, I've seen almost zero reasons for patches needing to be submitted HERE (if I'm understanding your patch rejection claim as being to here to be correct). Since Vanilla was created, we've fixed literally dozens of Win32 bugs, and with only one exception (IO::Socket) has there been any need for any involvement from this list. As for merging Win32 stuff into core, which has been mentioned before as well, I'm still not clear that we have sufficient evidence for it. Such evidence needs to be extremely clear, and not based solely on the opinions and assertions of individuals. Again, this is half the reason why Vanilla will be left is pure-core. I think we may be relatively close to enough evidence for perhaps including Win32API::File. But whatever is done to add better support for Win32, it should be done in such a way as to not impose on the status quo. If we can add Win32 support without ever breaking a single existing working thing or requiring anything to change a line of code, I'm all for it. But many suggestions I've seen are simply not subtle enough. Adam K Something ive been advocating and sending patches in for > years. And you know what? Generally ive been overruled by people who > dont know jack shit about win32, or how its apis work. And thats the > general impression many Win32 people who try to contribute back > encounter[2]. They contribute a patch, the people who normally would > apply it are unable or unwilling to assess it with an open mind and > the patch ends up ignored. They dont bother wasting their time again. > > Actually I think a solution to this would be to make a Win32 Pumpking, > which I supposed is pretty close to what Steve Peters is these days, > so maybe it should be an official title for him. Note that the mjor > win32 related work was done when we had an experienced Win32 developer > as Pumpking (GSAR). > > Yves > [1] A signifigant majority in my experience, mostly due to antipathy > to the platform and some kind of sheer inability to search the free > MSDN library resources that Microsoft makes available > [2] Theyve told me. Many Win32 experienced programmers on Perlmonks > have posted patches been rebuffed and resolved never to bother to do > so again. >Thread Previous | Thread Next