Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
* demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> [2012-01-24T10:57:50] > On 24 January 2012 16:49, David Golden <xdaveg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > (b) p5p should finally bite the bullet and write the spec for "minimal > > perl" (whatever we finally think that is) and we should then offer > > that to packagers as a sanctioned minimal distribution as a compromise > > to response (a). We should also be clear about binary package naming > > -- i.e. a minimal perl should not be packaged as "perl". > > Absolutely agree. This is the productive path. Lets get our house in > order before we complain about others. Yes. This is what we're doing. -- rjbsThread Previous