develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from January 2012

Re: Reaction to Redhat/Fedora modified releases

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Marcela Mašláňová
January 25, 2012 07:32
Re: Reaction to Redhat/Fedora modified releases
Message ID:
On 01/25/2012 04:02 PM, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2012, Jerome Quelin wrote:
>> On 12/01/24 13:54 -0500, David Golden wrote:
>>> I think that could make sense.  I could imagine a "perl" package that
>>> depends on "perl-minimal", "perl-doc", "perl-devel" and possibly
>>> "perl-$DUAL_LIFE_MODULE" so that the latter could be upgraded as
>>> necessary.  If p5p can define the splits in a standard way, that could
>>> help standardize across OS packaging.
>> definitely.
>> so, is having a p5p stripped down perl with just perl and (almost) no
>> modules be possible? then we ship this as perl-minimal, all the modules
>> as perl-$MODULE the way we are doing it for cpan-only modules, and we
>> create a perl metapackage requiring all the modules that p5p think
>> should be part of a standard install.
>> this would make my day.
> In commit 00930d57002074c5f106f27d221b13e26f23dd31 , I have updated the
> two illustrative lists of files for a minimal installation in INSTALL,
> in the section on "Minimizing the Perl installation."
> Beyond that, I'm not unsure how much useful generic guidance p5p can
> really give for what distributors should include, since it depends on
> what they hope to do with that minimal perl installation.  For example,
> consider two distributions that want to include a hypothetical
> perl-minimal.  One distribution has most of its installation programs
> written in python, while the other mostly uses perl.  It is unlikely that
> they both need the same minimal files.  It is also unlikely that p5p,
> without knowing details of the perl installation scripts, can guess which
> set of modules will be sufficient.  Nor can p5p reliably guess the target
> audience of the installed system in order to guess what they might need.
> Independent of what files to include, there is the issue of what to name
> such a stripped-down package.  It would seem wise to me to pick a name
> other than a plain 'perl.'
I agree it's really hard to say, what is minimal. In Fedora is currently
under perl everything what doesn't live dual-life in our distribution
and what isn't in devel. Imho in minimal shouldn't be modules from cpan
directory. At least most of them.

Marcela Mašláňová
BaseOS team Brno

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About