I'm not sure I'm really qualified to answer this, since I'm not really a Perlistanian, but in general, if something shipping with Parrot depends on something else, it should be in the Parrot tree (in either source or binary form, whichever is more convenient and/or makes the most sense). If there's a common set of "somethings" that lots of those languages depend on, then the same rule applies.
I don't know the impact of creating "bundles", so I'm kinda speaking from ignorance, so take with large grain of salt. Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking, Writing http://www.tedneward.com > -----Original Message----- > From: James Keenan via RT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [perl #51916] Error in tests after build > > 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 virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1342 - Release Date: > 3/25/2008 10:26 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1348 - Release Date: 3/28/2008 10:58 AM
