Reini Urban
Thu Aug 30 15:08:00 GMT 2012

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:
> [Summary of previous discussion] I think that each perl module
> distribution should have its own Cygwin package.  Since our perl
> installation at work needs quite a few more distributions, I created the
> missing cygport files while the switch to 5.14 was pending.  To ease
> installation I also made a bundle package that does nothing but list all
> those individual packages as dependencies so they can be installed
> together by selecting a single package.
> I am aware that splitting perl_vendor up into individual packages would
> require great effort and I fully understand that you don't want to
> shoulder that alone.  As a transitory measure with much less impact, the
> distributions inside perl_vendor could each get empty packages that
> depend on perl_vendor (sort of the reverse of what I've been doing with
> my umbrella package), which would at least make it more explicit what is
> available even though the install (and update) still happens en bloc.
> If you like this idea better, I should be able to provide corresponding
> Cygwin packages (or just the definitions, whatever your preference) in
> about two weeks.

You can have all packages in vendor, but I doubt that they are all
needed and that
it is useful.
The reasoning for having them together was to support self-installation via CPAN
and reporting tests results automatically in case of errors, not to
bother the list with
such minor issues.

Splitting them up will break this idea. People will complain how to
install perl packages
and upstream maintainers will complain about missing cygwin feedback.

There are only some package with are not needed for CPAN and CPAN::Reporter,
which others found useful to have as default. DBI should be added also
IMHO, esp.
since using the default DBI from CPAN is still a security risk for
three quarters of a
year now.

What's the problem? Lack of upates for these?
Updates via cpan are easier than updates via setup.exe

> Moving a distribution out from perl_vendor into its own package later on
> (LWP springs to mind, which is about the only distribution that I update
> with some regularity) would require a coordinated release of two
> packages, but that seems manageable.
> As for taking over maintainership of all (or the majority) of these perl
> distribution packages: I am open to the idea in general, but would want
> to have a co-maintainer in the beginning and I would need access to a
> build host at least for the XS modules.  The cygport definitions I have
> in hand certainly need some more work before they would be good for
> general release, but so far I've got zero feedback on them.
Reini Urban

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list