While lurking in IRC, I've seen several discussions of what CPAN 6 should
look like. Honestly, wayland76++'s idea for packaging seems the best to me.
Most of the suggestions so far, especially those based on alien, apt, yum,
or other existing package managers have a few major problems:
* Alien
On Thursday 28 May 2009 4:04:28 pm Daniel Carrera wrote:
> * We were mainly looking at Alien as a source of Perl code we could borrow.
Ah, I was lumping it in with the previous proposals to actually use .deb as
the official P6 package format. My mistake.
> * The point of wayland76's proposal was
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 t
On Thursday 28 May 2009 4:54:50 pm Daniel Carrera wrote:
> On the other hand, distributing Parrot bytecode (or PIR, or PASM) seems
> fine. But I don't know what to suggest for modules that require a C
> compiler.
The problem with that is that Rakudo isn't the "Official" impelentation, and
never wi
While lurking in IRC, I've seen several discussions of what CPAN 6 should
look like. Honestly, wayland76++'s idea for packaging seems the best to me.
Most of the suggestions so far, especially those based on alien, apt, yum,
or other existing package managers have a few major problems:
* Alien
On Friday 29 May 2009 1:51:40 am Mark Overmeer wrote:
> I would really like to see a split in terminology being used for the
> various seperate problems. The traditional confusion about what CPAN is:
> an archive or an install tool. Package manager discussions are in the
> process AFTER the insta
> I believe he is arguing that whatever we end up doing needs to make it
> easy for an external package-manager to find out what files CPAN6.pm
> is going to install, and where, and what the dependencies were (both
> Perl and system libraries). So that the various distributions can
> make native p
> I know that Rakudo is not the official implementation. The problem is
> that you misunderstood my post. I did not say to distribute PIR to the
> exclusion of Perl source. You know that I was replying to Larry's
> comment that he supported the notion of distributing binaries. Surely
> you didn't t
Forgot to send this to the list.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Alex Elsayed
Date: Wed, May 12, 2010 at 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Ideas for a "Object-Belongs-to-Thread" threading model
To: Daniel Ruoso
You may find interesting a paper that was (at one point) listed
in the
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:19 AM, wrote:
> The guts of the discussion has been kernel threading (and mutable shared
> state) is necessary. The perception being that by using user-threading (on
> a single core at a time), you avoid the need for and complexities of
> locking and synchronisation. And
On Wednesday, 7 September 2016 17:57:32 PDT Parrot Raiser wrote:
> This isn't a request for a feature, merely a thought experiment. We're
> still in the phase where it's more important to ensure that existing
> features work properly than add new ones.
>
> How difficult would it be to include a me
11 matches
Mail list logo
