On 02/02/2011 11:43 AM, Paul Howarth wrote:
> 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.
Actually I have never seen anybody doing this.
Apart of this this definition of vendor_dir
- Does not match Fedora's practice to install into vendor_dir.
- Violates the FHS. 3rd party's are supposed to install to /opt.
> 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.
Agreed.
> 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.
Well, IMO
a) these F15 paths are a regression in comparsion to what Fedora<15 had
because they reintroduce vendor_dir.
b) these F15 paths break with Fedora's convention to use vendor_dir to
install Fedora-modules => This proposal would requires inspecting all
perl-module's specs and rebuild them.
c) the setting for vendor_dir is a broken as were its predecessors
(letting the site*dir point to user local makes sense).
I.e. if this convention shall be applied, we need to modifiy and rebuild
all perl-packages which currently install to vendor_dir.
Ralf
--
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
