> "AD" == Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AD> Making the build process fairly modular and keeping a Config.pm
AD> record of what this particular perl binary can and can not do are
AD> both seemingly reasonable goals for the perl6-build process.
Please, make the Config.pm be intern
> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TC> +---+
TC> | Permit me to repeat: if you remove the documentation, you will no |
TC> | longer have a functioning Perl distribution. |
TC>
> "MGS" == Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MGS> The problem of production machines vs devel machines isn't such a big
MGS> deal. Production machines generally have plenty of space and only one
MGS> copy of Perl.
Sez You.
I've got installations where I have to hunt around to f
>So this would break any code which interacts with pod: Pod::Usage, perlman,
>perlhelp, etc.
NB: perlhelp == perlman with a particular metapage named perlhelp,
which knows to search the pod library linewise.
>Which I suppose just adds weight to the don't go there,
>highly discouraged ultimatum.
From: Garrett Goebel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Hmm. Might want to be a bit more fine grained. How about the heretical
> option to strip pod and comments from the standard library?
So this would break any code which interacts with pod: Pod::Usage, perlman,
perlhelp, etc. Which I suppose just
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Nathan V. Patwardhan wrote:
> I don't think that the documentation should be removed from the core
> distribution, BUT I do think that there should be an "easter egg" that
> allows people to build a Perl distribution without documentation or
> whatever else they choose. Ther
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 12:23:25PM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2000 19:41:20 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> >Perl should come distributed with more modules.
>
> I know of people/sites where installing the whole lot of Perl just to
> run a tiny script, is not acceptable as an option
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> Sounds like a seperate RFC. Like I said, I want to reverse some of
> the philosophies that have kept things like LWP out of the core for so
> long.
The differing timescales of development by the myriad different authors
involved has always been on
>I don't think that the documentation should be removed from the core
>distribution, BUT I do think that there should be an "easter egg" that
>allows people to build a Perl distribution without documentation or
>whatever else they choose. There have been times that I've
>wanted/needed to build a
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 09:08:49AM -0500, Garrett Goebel wrote:
:
: I share Tom's view here. I think it would be a bad idea to distribute the
: source tarball for the Core Perl Distribution without documentation. Has
: anyone made a case for the size of download issue? I was under the possibly
:
From: Michael G Schwern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Doh! Don't read email for two days and look what happens. Its like
> going on vacation and leaving the iron on.
Speaking of which, I just re-read my previous email, and I want apologize
for contributing to the flamebait. Sorry. Hopefully t
On 19 Sep 2000 19:41:20 -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>Perl should come distributed with more modules.
I know of people/sites where installing the whole lot of Perl just to
run a tiny script, is not acceptable as an option.
Not everyone is a developer.
--
Bart.
Doh! Don't read email for two days and look what happens. Its like
going on vacation and leaving the iron on.
Just FYI, the main thrust of the RFC is "More Modules". All the stuff
about multiple distributions and installation options is tangental and
will be dropped (or split off into another
> "CRT" == Casey R Tweten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CRT> rm them.
Sure, and I can sling around the manpages after they have been installed
in the wrong place. I can also run all of the make files by hand.
If I can go in and simply comment out the INSTALL section of the makefile
(which I h
From: Chaim Frenkel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> From: Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Same answer: I won't do it because it's evil and
> > wrong. I am vehemently and vociferously opposed to software that
> > is installed *ANYWHERE* without documentation. If there is no
> > docum
Today around 1:36pm, Chaim Frenkel hammered out this masterpiece:
: > "TC" == Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: TC> Wait. I see now: you've asked us to endorse murdering children in
: TC> their sleep. Same answer: I won't do it because it's evil and
: TC> wrong. I am veheme
> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TC> Wait. I see now: you've asked us to endorse murdering children in
TC> their sleep. Same answer: I won't do it because it's evil and
TC> wrong. I am vehemently and vociferously opposed to software that
TC> is installed *ANYWHERE* wi
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Tom Christiansen wrote:
> >> (SE), AFAIK, and therefore the man pages should be an option that could be
> >> deleted to save space.
>
> >This is already an option, and has been for years. I don't imagine that
> >would change in perl6.
>
> I should much prefer to see random
>> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>TC> I would be opposed to any mechanism that could allow people
>TC> to have their code without its attendant documentation.
>Why?
>What if I have one or two development boxes, and two handfuls of
>production machines. I don't need d
> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TC> I would be opposed to any mechanism that could allow people
TC> to have their code without its attendant documentation.
Why?
What if I have one or two development boxes, and two handfuls of
production machines. I don't need documen
>> (SE), AFAIK, and therefore the man pages should be an option that could be
>> deleted to save space.
>This is already an option, and has been for years. I don't imagine that
>would change in perl6.
I should much prefer to see random modules deleted instead.
--tom
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Curtis Jewell wrote:
> (SE), AFAIK, and therefore the man pages should be an option that could be
> deleted to save space.
This is already an option, and has been for years. I don't imagine that
would change in perl6.
--
Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 06:49:20PM -0500, Curtis Jewell wrote:
> From: "Adam Turoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Are you proposing something like this:
> >
> > Standard distribution:
> > 1: Everything (core, docs, standard modules)
> >
> > Alternative Distribution:
> > 2a: core language (+ pragmatic m
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Turoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 15:08
Subject: Re: RFC 260 (v1) More modules
> Sorry this is so long. No time to condense it.
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:41:20PM -
I would be opposed to any mechanism that could allow people
to have their code without its attendant documentation.
--tom
I would suggest looking at the SDK that is being developed for perl5.
In fact I would suggest that is probbaly the way to go, a small-ish core
and various SDK's targeted towards different areas.
As many of these modules are maintained by separate authors, haveing
a separate SDK will allow a diff
Sorry this is so long. No time to condense it.
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 07:41:20PM -, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
>
> =head2 Core bloat?
>
> The most obvious objection is core bloat. 5.6.0 is already over 5
> megs and only going to get fatter. Throwing lots of modules into the
> core will
On 19 Sep 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
> =head2 Which modules?
Just to throw out some possibilities for discussion:
Date::Manip or some other date manipulation module. Date::Manip is cool
but awfully huge, I know.
Can't think of others right at this moment.
-dave
/*==
ww
28 matches
Mail list logo
