2007/12/12, Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Igor Peshansky wrote: > > FWIW, some of these modules might be worth packaging as part of the Cygwin > > Perl package (in vendor_perl), rather than as separate packages. > > Actually, I wish that we would NOT be doing this. Separate modules > should be packaged separately, because otherwise, as we have it now: > > 1) updating a module requires repackaging (and redownloading, and > reinstalling...) the entire perl; > > 2) alternatively, the modules just get neglected and go stale; > > 3) some modules have binary dependencies which the perl core does not > have, e.g. XML-LibXML. > > IMO these should all be broken out. (Hint: as Eric just discovered, > packaging perl modules is *really* easy with cygport. But then again, > I'm biased.)
And I have to add that packaging perl is really hard, because I haven't got yet the chroot trick to work when packaging it. Modules hardcode absolute paths and install into hardcoded places, so it had has to be done into the live tree and picking up the mass of new files installed there is a mess - done with a timestamp. So changes are not making it fast enough into the big perl, unlike with smaller perl-* modules. -- Reini Urban http://phpwiki.org/ http://murbreak.at/ http://spacemovie.mur.at/ http://helsinki.at/ -- 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/
