Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:43:18PM +0100, Christian Walde wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:01:50 +0100, Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:31:30AM +0100, Christian Walde wrote: >>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 08:41:50 +0100, Johan Vromans <jvromans@squirrel.nl> wrote: >>> >>>> A good example of a typical development-oriented operation. >>> >>> If you're looking for non-developer uses of EUMM: >>> >>> Consider someone wanting to install a piece of Perl-based software on their server, like say, a blog. Maybe blawd. There's a very good chance these will have dependencies not fulfilled by the distro. As such using EUMM to install dependencies becomes a strict user action. However without it present they're blocked and cannot proceed. >> >> Sillyness. There's a very good chance the blog needs a database of some >> form that wasn't installed by the distro either. What would they do? >> Install the package for said database. EUMM missing? They have to install >> the package that provides EUMM. >> >> Yeah, it's a bit of extra work, but it's far from "blocked and cannot proceed". > > I've been in situations where a lack of root privileges and a refusal of system administration to install some basic tools meant that the only option left was to deploy dependencies by adding them to SVN and avoiding any binary dependencies. (Different OSes across the servers.) So, let me get this straight. You're now talking about a situation where a person can install software, and its dependencies indendently, except for EUMM which needs the blessing of someone with root privileges? Is that really a case where the perl community should provide pressure on Linux vendors so that some users of their distros don't end up in the situation that's being described? Let's not blow this "some Linux distros have minimal perl packages on their single-CD installs" issue out of proportion. AbigailThread Previous | Thread Next