perl Bundle::Cygwin / perl-bundle-cygwin package

Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes sthoenna@efn.org
Thu Dec 22 22:08:00 GMT 2005


On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:14:06PM -0600, Yaakov S (Cygwin Ports) wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> > I'm working on creating a bundle of common Perl modules that build and
> > pass all significant tests on cygwin.
> > 
> > I hope to have it accepted as a cygwin package.
> 
> I think it's preferable to make separate packages for each module.  My
> reasoning:
> 
> 1) this is the precedent set by Linux distributions;
> 2) bumping one module doesn't require rolling a whole bundle;
> 3) separate modules minimizes unnecessary dependencies;
> 4) I'm sure there's something else I'm forgetting.
> 
> IOW, I do NOT like this idea.
> 
> If, OTOH, I do believe that more perl modules should go into the distro,
> without packaging the entire CPAN, certainly:
> 
> 1) modules which don't build OOTB (e.g. Tk, gtk2-perl bindings, etc.);
> 2) modules which are prerequisites for other packages (e.g.
> ExtUtils::PkgConfig, necessary for building gtk2-perl bindings).
> 
> The same would apply, of course, to python and ruby.  You'll see I
> already have a large selection on Cygwin Ports, although not all of
> those are candidates for the distro.

Large distributions like POE or the DateTime:: modules should have
packages of their own.  I was thinking of smaller modules that it
really would make no sense to have one package per CPAN distribution
for, particularly common dependencies of other modules.

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/



More information about the Cygwin mailing list