Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2012
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 BrnoThread Previous | Thread Next