On 7/2/19 11:20 AM, Dave Sherohman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 06:30:19PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: >> I tend to stick to Debian packages as my primary choice, resorting >> to off-distribution packages when needed (e.g. not packaged for >> Debian, or I /need/ a newer version). Of course it takes some foresight >> to guess in advance whether you expect such a situation in the >> future. >> >> Rationale: they mesh better with the flow of system updates/upgrades. >> >> I've found Perl packaging in Debian outstanding. The Debian Perl >> packaging team does a damn good job indeed. > > Pretty much the same here. I was initially hired as a Perl developer, > then gradually moved into more sysadmin duties and, in both roles, I > prefer to stick with the Debian-packaged perl binary. It gets me > security updates as needed and the only reasons I see a particular need > for PerlBrew and the like are: > > 1) You need different compile-time options than Debian chooses > > 2) You need access to a feature that's only present in a newer-than- > Debian Perl version > > 3) You want to have the "latest and greatest" for its own sake > > Personally, I've never encountered #1 or #2 in practice and if #3 > mattered to me, then I wouldn't be running Debian stable in the first > place. >
+1 here, but in case one need the "latest and greatest" modules, in most cases it's dead simple to package a not-yet-packaged module with cpan2deb from dh-make-perl package. One of the benefits of this approach, is that you don't need to bring compilers and sources of the dependencies to the production machine. Build packages on a "development" node and install binary packages on the production. In case you need to replicate the setup, or you have more than one machine one can maintain a repository,making installation of a new system way easier. And you also can contribute back to Debian in case you packaged a new software. Best, Alex
