On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 05:47:51PM +0000, Smylers wrote: > Andy Lester writes: > > > I don't think we need another CPAN at all. There's nothing wrong with > > putting "require 6;" at the top of Makefile.PL and keeping everything in > > one happy CPAN.
Some observations: - CPAN is "just an ftp mirror network" - PAUSE is not CPAN, it's just how modules get onto CPAN - search.cpan.org is not CPAN, it's just one interface to it > There is a problem if it interferes with people trying to use > identically named Perl 5 modules. If a Perl 6 DBI module exists, I > posit that it would not be a good thing if this was what the CPAN or > CPANPLUS modules automatically down loads People are going to have to get used to being more specific about version numbers and even authors. Hopefully the tools (CPANPLUS.pm etc) will improve to assist them. > nor if that's what the Cpan > Search website presents as being the most recent version of DBI. In Perl 6 it's perfectly possible to have multiple modules from different authors with the same 'short name'. Even using them at the same time. The 'long name' of 'my' DBI would be something like DBI-1.46-TIMB. (The details of how "use DBI;" selects which of possibly many DBIs are installed haven't been fully worked out.) CPAN itself is "just an ftp mirror network" and the existing directory and file naming conventions might suffice. I'm sure changes, possibly quite deep changes, are needed PAUSE, search.cpan.org, and peoples expectations to accommodate this and other aspects of perl6. However both PAUSE and search.cpan.org are (I believe) maintained by single individuals who may not be willing or able to put in the time to make the required changes. CPAN, PAUSE and the search.cpan.org grew evolved together over quite a long period. I suspect we're in for a bumpy ride with perl6 with a conflict between people expecting the old tools to evolve quickly and others getting frustrated and creating alternatives. Tim.
