Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2014
On 30/07/2014 22:34, Rocco Caputo wrote: > On Jul 30, 2014, at 12:29, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com > <mailto:demerphq@gmail.com>> wrote: >> On 30 July 2014 18:12, Rocco Caputo <rcaputo@pobox.com >> <mailto:rcaputo@pobox.com>> wrote: >> >> On Jul 30, 2014, at 11:28, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com >> <mailto:demerphq@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>> I personally think that we include things we shouldn't and dont >>> include things we should, and that the discussion cannot be >>> simplified to "minimal core is better". >> >> That's easy for you to say, but when the criterion is "what >> people want", either you take the intersection of everyone's sets >> of crucial libraries or the union. The intersection approaches >> "minimal core" and the union approaches "CPAN". >> >> >> If crucial libraries means "application libraries" then I agree that >> CPAN is the right place. >> >> I personally am more concerned with[...] > > That's the crux, isn't it: Crucial is personal and subjective. The > criteria must be objective, and the objective endgame is either > minimal core, or bloated core. > > It can't be somewhere in between because anything $_ can't imagine > ever needing is immediately "bloat", foreach @everyone. > > -- > Rocco Caputo <rcaputo@pobox.com <mailto:rcaputo@pobox.com>> Perhaps one way around this is to have a minimal core with well defined bundles that distribution maintainers can pull in to make their particular distribution If we put these bundles in the Bundle::CORE:: name space this shows that what is in the bundle list is maintained by the core team and thus blessed as an 'official' part of Perl, even though it might not be in your particular Perl distribution. JohnThread Previous | Thread Next