Em Sex, 2009-05-29 às 01:54 +0200, Daniel Carrera escreveu:
> 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.
> By binaries, I assume you mean native binaries, as opposed to Parrot 
> bytecode. The only problem I see is that it may be impractical to ask 
> CPAN mirrors to hold multiple binaries of each module for every OS and 
> every CPU.

I really don't think it will be CPAN's job to distribute the binary
packages, CPAN should only distribute the source package, as it does
today. Binary dependency is something that needs to be handled too
closely to the underlying operating system to be made generic.

So, I'd expect to have a Debian archive, in the Debian case, hosted by
the Debian Perl group (which packages about ~ 500 CPAN modules to Debian
today) with the binary packages targetting each of the Debian

The same would go for RedHat and other linux distros, while for the
Win32 world, we would have something in the lines of what ActiveState
already does...

But, I insist, CPAN should only store the source packages and the source
metadata should only describe what are the sources, and not how to
compile and install them...


Reply via email to