On Sat, 30 May 2009, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
1) A package format.
This is supposed to be a source format, but different from current model
used in CPAN, it's pretty clear already that it can't include a build
system, like ExtUtils::MakeMaker or Module::Install.
There's already some consensus
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 06:34:02PM +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote:
I am in IRC
working with Rakudo folk on how Rakudo is going to store modules on the
disk. Once that is done, one can begin talking about a package format
and an installer, and then go from there.
So far the discussion has
Part of the tension here may be coming from the attempt to debate too
many levels of structure at once.
One of the common factors that has contributed to the longevity of
Unix (in the generic sense), and the Internet, is their layered
architectures. The kernel does its thing, the shell sits on
Parrot Raiser wrote:
One of the common factors that has contributed to the longevity of
Unix (in the generic sense), and the Internet, is their layered
architectures.
+1 for layered architectures.
If this discussion can be split into clear layers, (what gets stored,
where, how, c.) it might
* Daniel Carrera (daniel.carr...@theingots.org) [090530 20:54]:
3) A high-level install tool, analogous to yum or apt, that uses the
CPAN network and resolves dependencies.
Mark O. is most interested in (3).
These are all things which I do *not* play in the layers I want to
build. Although I
Mark Overmeer wrote:
A pity you didn't want to read the paper.
I have better things to do with my life than read your 30-page paper.
I'd rather participate in a consensus process where I feel I can make a
difference.
Please clarify ... how would you specify that? And how
would you
Em Sáb, 2009-05-30 às 22:54 +0200, Daniel Carrera escreveu:
In the hopes of helping the CPAN discussion move forward, in the
direction of tangible work, I have made a wiki page with a proposal:
Please read the Basics section, which is quite short. The main point
of this section is to divide
Daniel Ruoso wrote:
The leap you make from the source package to the different binary
formats is overlooking a lot of details. It would be interesting if you
could take a look in the previous discussions on the matter.
I'll be happy to. I was just trying to make a small iterative step on
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:22:31AM +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Mark Overmeer wrote:
A pity you didn't want to read the paper.
I have better things to do with my life than read your 30-page paper.
I'd rather participate in a consensus process where I feel I can make a
difference.
What
