Randy Kobes wrote: > On Sat, 15 May 2004, DH wrote: > >>--- Randy Kobes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>[ ... ] However, installing via ppm ensures >>>the module is installed into the correct location, and also, >>>it registers the package with ppm, so that updates and >>>removal in the future can be done within ppm. >> >>installing using CPANPLUS ensures the exact same thing. >>Putting pure perl packages on ppm repositories just ppm >>breeds incompetence. I get email all the time from people >>who never heard of cpan.org/CPAN/CPANPLUS or who never >>read perlmodinstall. > > That is unfortunate that there's these two almost > orthogonal ways of installing things - ppm and > CPAN/CPANPLUS. However, at least for Win32, many > will prefer ppm, due to lack of a compiler.
I fully appreciate the woes of people forced to work on Win32, but please - PLEASE - do not clutter CPAN with distribution packages for specific operating systems. CPAN is difficult enough to manage (and use!) without having to deal with packages for proprietary operating environment. The horror scenario is that for each of the X-thousand Perl modules, there will be N different versions, each with it's slightly different packaging scheme.
If there is a need for a central distribution site for Perl modules packaged for ActiveState's Perl, and ActiveState themselves decline to supply it, I'm sure there are enough enthusiastic followers that will be more than happy to do so instead. This could even be mirrored across the world, just like CPAN. But please don't let the rest of the Perl community suffer for it.
/Lars
