X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:19:37 -0800
From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes <sthoenna AT efn DOT org>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: perl Bundle::Cygwin / perl-bundle-cygwin package
Message-ID: <20051223081937.GB4064@efn.org>
References: <20051222174601 DOT GB3764 AT efn DOT org> <43AAFAFE DOT 3010208 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <20051222215102 DOT GA4012 AT efn DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20051222215102.GA4012@efn.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:51:02PM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> 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.

To further explain, suppose we had a package of all the DateTime::
modules (which are broken up into many distributions, but I hope you
would agree would belong together).  They have a number of small
general purpose dependencies; putting those in the same package
doesn't make sense to me, nor does packaging each individually.

I would lump them all together, along with the few modules we don't
have packaged yet but that come bundled with ActivePerl (for
competitive purposes :) and maybe some of the modules that will be
bundled with perl in 5.10.

--
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/