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

Re: RFC 260 (v1) More modules

Adam Turoff
September 19, 2000 17:04
Re: RFC 260 (v1) More modules
Message ID:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 06:49:20PM -0500, Curtis Jewell wrote:
> From: "Adam Turoff" <>
> > 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 am not disagreeign with tchrist.  I'm trying to figure out what 
schwern meant in his RFC.

His RFC states:

>> The first is to provide several distributions of Perl.  A minimalistic
>> distribution might provide just perl and a handful of modules.
>> Another provides the docs.  Another a set of modules equivalent to the
>> current set and yet another provides our extended set.
>> CPAN/src/perl-X.X.X.tar.gz would be one big bundle encompassing all
>> these sets.  Other combinations might be made available.

I pointed out that this reinvents the Python distribution bug (which
Tom finds particularly offensive).

My request for clarification was to see if schwern was proposing
releasing Perl as it is today (e.g. dist #1), as well as releasing
all of the component releases (e.g. dist #2*).

I think the dual-bundling approach has some merit: you're allowed
to be stupid if you want to be stupid (or otherwise have a very
good reason, and know what you're doing), but get the status quo
in all other cases.

Schwern wasn't clear if his "several distributions of Perl" means
the full bundle and mini-bundles *OR* mini-bundles and no full bundle.

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