On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:21 AM, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:34 PM, James Keenan via RT > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri Mar 21 19:23:13 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > No, and it appears not be part of Bundle::Parrot on CPAN, either. We'll > > > have to rectify this. > > > > > > > Coke asked me to pose this question for general discussion: > > > > If individual languages -- as distinct from Parrot itself -- require > > non-core modules from CPAN, should such modules go into Bundle::Parrot? > > Should we create a Bundle::Parrot::Languages? Should we create a > > Bundle::Parrot::SomeSpecificLanguage? > > > no, definitely not. languages must be self-contained.
As the one who started this mantra, the original intent here was to get all the configuration information out of core parrot... > that means any > modules/libraries necessary for a particular language implementation > must be checked for by the language itself, and not by parrot. ...Agreed. > languages/dotnet gets this right, by having its own Configure.pl. > other languages must move to that standard. > Bundle::Parrot is for perl modules that are required to build and > develop parrot core, and parrot core only. This is the part that I think is open for discussion. I hesitated to add language-specific stuff to B::P, but: While we're bundling the languages in the repository, I think it does make some sense for this to support the entire repository. Balkanizing further at this stage is arguably going to make it more difficult to get HLL developers contributing. Note that we already include Test::Base which is used by APL: If we do go this route for B::P, this should be removed. -- Will "Devil's Advocate" Coleda
