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

Re: Reaction to Redhat/Fedora modified releases

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Jerome Quelin
January 26, 2012 04:40
Re: Reaction to Redhat/Fedora modified releases
Message ID:
On 12/01/25 11:09 -0500, David Golden wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:53 AM, Jerome Quelin <> wrote:
> > i'm not the one trying to shave everything possible, since i'm not
> > working on the installation stage of the distribution. but i think that
> > for them, every byte count (since it would allow to put more rpms on the
> > installation cd). and they need perl on the cd since our installer is
> > written in perl...
> Out of curiosity, what core modules does the installer use?

i don't know exactly, once again i'm not working on the installer.  and
really, size isn't my biggest concern as perl packager. (size is the
concern of people in the dist dealing with installation). my concern is
really about packaging properly perl and the dual-lived modules.

so, for me at last, let's just skip the size problem.

> > 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.
> I think that's feasible.  It will take some work to figure out the
> dependencies, but Perl already bootstraps its own testing (with a few
> tricks) so a minimal perl plus deterministic ordering should be
> possible.

in fact, the "problem" comes from the fact that perl is shipping
what is basically an equivalent to a package manager (sthg that allows
user to fetch updates & install them).

we distributors would like the package manager be our native one, that
is urpmi/yum/aptitude/whatever. this does not mean that we don't want to
ship cpan/cpanplus/cpanm/whatever (we do ship them), we just want perl's
package management to be a fallback if we do not ship a wanted module.

therefore, shipping a minimal perl with no module would allow us to
compile perl and bootstrap the needed modules, all of them in their
respective perl-$MODULE package.

(it would also please people wanting a perl with a minimal size, but
once again that's not *my* main problem)


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