-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:03:26PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> As a general rule, I find that using Debian packaging for perl makes
> absolutely no sense - and often problematic.
It's more complicated than this. There are other (non-Perl, non-CPAN)
Debian packages dependent on Perl modules. Thus such a swaying statement
is almost surely wrong.
> Perl has its own ecosystem (cpan) that does an incredibly good job
> of packaging [...]
As has been stated elsewhere in this thread, Perl is a particularly
happy example of cross-package-system work. Most Perl packages are
co-maintained by the Debian Perl packaging group, are reasonably
up to date and interact well with the odd self-installed package.
> Far better to install perl manually and use cpan to manage updates
> and installs.
Again such an absolute statement. Put this way, that makes no sense.
It depends on *for whom*. If I'm mostly interested in Gnu R, because
I'm a biologist, and just want to have a reasonably working Debian
underneath (perhaps with some odd DBI and DBD::Pg or whatever), then
it'd be nonsense to use CPAN.
FWIW, Perl *is* one of my main languages, and I don't use CPAN on
my Debian box (although I use it regularly on some customer's
Redhat boxes, which tend to be too old). OTOH -- I compile my Emacs,
because I don't like the distro's defaults.
For me, that's exactly the invaluable help of the distro: it lets
me pick my fights and keeps my back clear of fights I don't want
to pick. And those will be different for each person.
Only when upstream is too obnoxious ("always use the latest and
greatest or..." -- Ruby, I'm looking at you!), it becomes difficult
to package properly for a distro. But I tend to avoid those
places. Perl isn't like that.
regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlfs278ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbn6QCeOK79Upm51aYwindToArEAn1u
aJwAn2MmmacDybOa295E1Qyw3ORHlpY0
=IVht
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
