On Thursday 28 May 2009 4:22:00 pm Larry Wall wrote:
> I support the notion of distributing binaries because nobody's gonna
> want to chew up their phone's battery doing unnecessary compiles.  The
> ecology of computing devices is different from ten years ago.
I agree. My ideal situation would be that CPAN6 offers multiple 'heads' - one 
might be a raw metadata store; another might be a Debian/Ubuntu style PPA 
provider, possibly building (.deb|.rpm)s when uploaded, or in a distributed 
CPANTS-like fashion.

> Most of these package managers have ways of running an installation
> script at the end, so we could perhaps think of this as downloading
> an installer rather than the actual software, and the new version
> of the installer contains or has access to all the versions it knows
> should be installed, and interacts with the official Perl library
> installer to install them.
This has the potential for greatly angering users and distro packagers: a 
major reason people use package managers is that they maintain a database of 
what files were installed, when, and by what package. If you use post-install 
hooks, many package managers won't have that information, making 
uninstallation a nightmare.

> By the same token, it's smart to keep the metadata close to the thing
> it's describing, so if it's easy to extract up front reliably, that's
> probably sufficient.
Again, agreed. That would fall under the "easy to submit well-formed packages" 
requirement in my mail. In fact, it could even still be a Meta.yml file in the 
source distribution - it could be up to CPAN6 to extract it for external 
access when the distribution is uploaded.

Reply via email to