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/
