Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
While I've no objection to building the end-user software to support multiple repositories, I know that there are certain segments of the community who are very very keen to keep everything in the one repository.

After reading the Zen of Comprehensive Archive Networks (ZCAN), I think there is very good reason for retaining the current infrastructure with the current, large, set of mirrors. That is not to say that we can't upgrade the packages and metadata.

 I'd agree with them, on the following conditions:

-    CPAN accepts packages in Perl5, Perl6, and anything else that runs on

"CPAN shall not piggyback another language" -- from ZCAN.

Judging from the ZCAN page, I don't expect that uploading Ruby modules to CPAN will go well, even if that module can be compiled to Parrot. The ZCAN page gave good reasons for this.

-    Some of the other changes mentioned here get implemented (ie. Larry's
    idea of putting binary packages on CPAN as well)

I personally don't care. But some mirrors might object to having their disk usage go up 5-fold because we decided to include binaries for many operating systems and CPUs.

The big problem with the multiple repos idea is that, unless each has a large organisation behind it, they die (witness the DAG RPM repo, which seemed deadish last time I looked; the packages are still there, but no updates seemed to be being made). CPAN, because it has a large enough organisation behind it, has a number of people behind it empowered with keeping it going. People don't want to have to keep up with the fashionable repos.



Reply via email to