On 31/01/11 15:21, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> Hello,
> because some questions and blocked reviews [1]. I feel that we really
> need discuss our @INC paths once again. I wrote proposal, which is
> almost the same as was the one sent to the list few months ago [2].
>
> This is only proposal and there are also other possibilities, how to
> create specific directory for installation of users rpms. I'd like to
> change this proposal to FPC guidelines maybe for next Fedora, therefore
> I really like to know your opinions.
First of all, what are presumably typos:
F-15:
@INC:
/usr/local/lib/perl5 -- for CPAN (site lib)
/usr/local/share/perl5 -- for CPAN (site arch)
/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl -- 3rd party (vendor lib)
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl -- 3rd party (vendor arch)
/usr/lib/perl5 -- Fedora (priv lib)
/usr/share/perl5 -- Fedora (arch lib)
.
Should surely be:
@INC:
/usr/local/%{_lib}/perl5 -- for CPAN (site arch)
/usr/local/share/perl5 -- for CPAN (site lib)
%{_libdir}/perl5/vendor_perl -- 3rd party (vendor arch)
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl -- 3rd party (vendor lib)
%{_libdir}/perl5 -- Fedora (arch lib)
/usr/share/perl5 -- Fedora (priv lib)
.
I don't really see any great harm in installing modules to perl/core
directories rather than vendor directories. I also like this nice,
simple set of paths.
However, the plan envisages third-party repositories sticking with
vendor directories and I'm not sure that's going to happen. If I need a
module for my own repository and Fedora already has some version of it,
I just grab that version, update it as necessary and built it. So I'll
inherit the use of the perl/core directories unless I explicitly revert
back to vendor directories. Other repositories might also want to
maintain as close compatibility with Fedora as possible and would use
that as justification for using perl/core too.
I thought the conventional structure of having modules bundled with perl
(the perl core) going to perl/core directories and everything else
that's packaged (including dual lived modules) going to vendor
directories made good, intuitive sense, and I think that's what upstream
intended too. Moreover, it seems to be widespread policy elsewhere:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Perl_Policy
http://use.perl.org/~schwern/journal/39246
https://www.socialtext.net/perl5/index.cgi?hints_for_distributors
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/perl-policy/
So overall I'm in favour of using the F-15 set of paths (assuming the
typos are fixed) but sticking with the vendor directories for everything
apart from the perl core.
Paul.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
