develooper Front page | perl.perl6.stdlib | Postings from September 2000

Re: RFC 260 (v1) More modules

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Curtis Jewell
September 19, 2000 16:49
Re: RFC 260 (v1) More modules
Message ID:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Turoff" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 15:08
Subject: Re: RFC 260 (v1) More modules

> Sorry this is so long.  No time to condense it.
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:41:20PM -0000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> >
> > =head2 Core bloat?
> >
> > The most obvious objection is core bloat.  5.6.0 is already over 5
> > megs and only going to get fatter.  Throwing lots of modules into the
> > core will only make it even bigger, possibly getting up to 10 megs!
> > There are a few solutions for this.
> >
> > The first is to provide several distributions of Perl.  A minimalistic
> > distribution might provide just perl and a handful of modules.
> On the face of it, this sounds good as an *alternative* distribution.
> I imagine some sites want to get only the core language, and none
> of the modules unless they are explicitly required.
> > Another provides the docs.
> Eh, don't know about this one.  This is one of the "bugs" Python has
> with their distribution system.
> Are you proposing something like this:
> Standard distribution:
> 1: Everything (core, docs, standard modules)
> Alternative Distribution:
> 2a: core language (+ pragmatic modules)
> 2b: standard modules
> 2c: docs (possibly split into tutorials and reference)
> Or some other mechanism?

I agree with Tom C. - I don't like the idea of splitting the docs apart from
the core language, myself. However, do you HAVE to pod2man the docs when
they are installed?

I assume some variant of the perlman script that's being developed will be
released with 6.0.0 - that would make the documentation self-executable
(SE), AFAIK, and therefore the man pages should be an option that could be
deleted to save space.

The option should also be saved in so MakeMaker could do the same
thing and create man pages from appropriately designed SE'ing module
documentation to match the answer to the installation mechanism.

I haven't seen 5.6.0/5.7.0's installation system lately to see if they
implement this, but I could take a look.

If we made the option more general rather than a yes/no choice, someone
could possibly wish to have TeX, PODs, text files, and HTML on their system
all at once, both for the core and for post-core modules.

> >
> > The integration and upkeep of existing CPAN modules is already a
> > fairly well-understood procedure.  The only foreseeable problem is
> > configuring and testing those modules requiring network access, as
> > this is not always available.
> Er, how about:
> A permanent ad-hoc working group should be created to discuss the
> perl6 standard library as the project comes closer to shipping code.
> The charter should include selection criteria for adding modules
> into the core distribution, as well as design criteria for
> modules that aim to be included into the core (e.g. adhering
> to perlstyle).

I like this implementation better.

Curtis Jewell
No matter where we fall or where we land       |
I believe we're part of a master plan (from "Wonderland" on the Ptm2K OMPS)

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