Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from June 2006
On 6/20/06, Adam Kennedy <adam@phase-n.com> wrote: > 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. Youve been paying attnetion to this issue for how long? A few months? Try doing it for years. > > 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). Then you arent looking closely enough, or dont know enough about the Win32's API to actually know when such support would benefit things. Sorry to put it so harshly but thats my view. > 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. Yeah, youve fixed some bugs, ive fixed some bugs, we all fix bugs. The hard ones need API support to handle properly, if you havent need the API then you havent been dealing with hard bugs. Which is fine, the easy bugs are just as annoying as the hard ones. Considering functionality consider File::Spec still doesnt use the Win32 API where it should be doing so, but youve probably never needed File::Spec to behave properly. You cant install all modules properly on Win32 without Win32API::File, you cant monitor process properly without Win32::Process, you cant monitory directory change events without Win32::ChangeNotify, you cant write to the eventlog without Win32::EventLog. You cant write to the registry without Win32API::Registry. Yada yada yada. > 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. Its not an opinion when i say these things. They are facts. You cant do things you should be able to do with a core perl. And frankly I think you should be more receptive of what Win32 programmers with experience tell you. For two reasons, if you listen you might avoid repeating hard lessons they have learned, but much more importantly you will be less likely to discourage them from participating. There is somethign incredibly frustrating when someone without any experience telling you that an opinion you have formed over many frustrating hours of hard work is rubbish. Frankly if I have to prove things to YOU then im not going to bother and think a lot of Win32 people will feel the same. OTOH, if somebody posts a suggestion and you dont understand it, a positive reception to the post and a requerst for clarification would probably go a long way. > Again, this is half the reason why Vanilla will be left is pure-core. Yes i agree with that objective. However since the objective is to get CPAN modules running instead of getting CPAN running properly I think youll only get half the job done. You see the problem is that if you dont know the API reasonably well you dont even know when something could be done better via the API. > I think we may be relatively close to enough evidence for perhaps > including Win32API::File. Id have thought the case would be simple. You cant upgrade Pathtools and several other modules without it (under some operating conditions anyway). You cant upgrade XS modules that are in use without it. To me thats about the end of the story. Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next