On Nov 19, 2007 9:01 AM, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We've probably spent more time debating this issue than it would have > > taken to apply the patch and write perl.pm. > > > > And with good reason, because there's likely to be secondary impacts from > this we have not considered yet. > > For example, how would CPAN clients deal with an unmet dependency? > > There's likely to be yet more special case code needed, so that when it > encounters an "old" version of perl.pm it doesn't go running off trying to > upgrade it, and so on... > > I appreciate the desire for a simple solution, and one that doesn't require > changes, but the quick answers and the right answers are orthogonal.
On reflection, I agree on the perl.pm idea. I only cited it because others had, but on reflection during the subway ride this morning, it's clear that it won't work -- largely because of the fact that CPAN.pm and CPANPLUS already special case "perl" as a requirement. David
