develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from February 2017

Re: [perl #130467] Default perl builds to not include . in @INC(default_inc_excludes_dot)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Graham Knop
February 13, 2017 10:57
Re: [perl #130467] Default perl builds to not include . in @INC(default_inc_excludes_dot)
Message ID:
I have to second Kent here.  "Toolchain" as an entity is #toolchain,
Perl-Toolchain-Gang, and the various mailing lists.  The discussion
there around this certainly hasn't been extensive.  And I personally
said that I wasn't comfortable with the inclusion of

There has been an increasing number of things that were discussed in
private but only brought to the list as "this is the conclusion."  I
don't think that's really appropriate.  Discussing things offline or
in other private places is obviously fine, but the results should be
brought to the list as arguments, not conclusions.

As for the direct issue of an inc::Module::Install shim, for CPAN the
most common use cases it won't be needed.  CPAN clients will already
be setting the PERL_USE_UNSAFE_INC variable, and packagers will mostly
have to as well.  The case it is really covering is running
Makefile.PL manually.  Considering only CPAN dists, I'm not sure that
is an important enough use case to justify including it.  It may be
worth it though given darkpan, such as code generated with

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Kent Fredric <> wrote:
> On 13 February 2017 at 10:21, Sawyer X <> wrote:
>> Kent, you are rash in your analysis.
>> You do not know about every conversation that takes place outside your
>> immediate view, but you continuously assume that unless you were a
>> witness to something, it did not happen and unless you accept something,
>> it is not good.
> Then don't blame toolchain for making this decision dude. If it was
> discussed in private behind closed doors, then it wasn't "Discussed
> extensively with toolchain", unless there's a second toolchain called
> "#toolchain-withoutkentnl".
> Maybe you did discuss it extensively with some members who might be
> considered toolchain.
> But your assertion is it "has been discussed extensively with toolchain".
> And that, based on the above arguments, suggests that you're making a
> misleading statement.
> --
> Kent

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