On properly packaging perl

Posted Aug 21, 2009 21:48 UTC (Fri) by spot (guest, #15640)
Parent article: On properly packaging perl

So, I disagree with Jonathan's assessment that nothing is going to change. We (the Fedora perl maintainers) listened to the arguments and we're going to redo the subpackages in the Fedora 13 (and RHEL 6) release timelines so that there is:

perl: depends on all subpackages provided in upstream tarball
perl-minimum (or perl-base, we're still discussing): minimum perl footprint for "base" functionality (e.g. no CPAN)

(To preempt the "why not in Fedora 12", we decided to hold off on making major perl changes during this short release cycle, since we have several big changes in addition to this to make, including the brown paper bag -DDEBUGGING fix)

Honestly, I would have preferred it if Tom Christiansen had filed a bug against our perl packages, to give us the opportunity to discuss this before jumping to huge conclusions and breathing fire, but since all of us are watching the p5p mailing list (if perhaps, not daily, at least weekly), we were able to respond to the issue in a reasonable amount of time.

Most of our followup discussion has happened on the fedora-perl-devel-list, you can see it here:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-perl-devel-list/20...
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-perl-devel-list/20...

On properly packaging perl

Posted Aug 21, 2009 22:03 UTC (Fri) by paravoid (subscriber, #32869) [Link]

FWIW, Debian & distros based on it has perl-base and perl/perl-modules (the first being architecture dependent while the latter being architecture neutral).

It may be better to lean on -base for consistency.

Perl Progress

Posted Aug 21, 2009 23:41 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (3 responses)

OK, so I missed the discussion on the Fedora-specific list. Guess I don't watch enough mailing lists...I stand corrected, sorry.

Perl Progress

Posted Aug 22, 2009 1:15 UTC (Sat) by mmcgrath (guest, #44906) [Link] (2 responses)

> OK, so I missed the discussion on the Fedora-specific list. Guess I don't watch enough mailing lists...I stand corrected, sorry.

:: cough cough :: perhaps it's time to talk to people before writing about them and their intentions?

Perl Progress

Posted Aug 22, 2009 2:55 UTC (Sat) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] (1 responses)

Perhaps you would like to donate your time to help? Please try to keep criticisms constructive.

Perl Progress

Posted Aug 22, 2009 2:59 UTC (Sat) by mmcgrath (guest, #44906) [Link]

> Perhaps you would like to donate your time to help? Please try to keep criticisms constructive.

Yeah, that was constructive criticism. Had he done it (I suggested he do the same thing in one of his last columns), he wouldn't have had to retract one of his conclusions. I don't have time to donate so instead I donate my money.

RHEL6 based on Fedora 13?

Posted Aug 22, 2009 23:05 UTC (Sat) by gurulabs (subscriber, #10753) [Link]

Do I read this to mean that RHEL 6 is going to based off of Fedora 13?

RHEL 6 coming in May/June 2010?

RHEL 6?

Posted Aug 22, 2009 23:06 UTC (Sat) by gurulabs (subscriber, #10753) [Link] (1 responses)

Do I read this to mean that RHEL 6 is going to based off of Fedora 13?

RHEL 6 coming in May/June 2010?

RHEL 6?

Posted Aug 23, 2009 17:36 UTC (Sun) by spot (guest, #15640) [Link]

I would not draw either conclusion.

All I can say is that the Fedora perl maintainers contain the same folks who will maintain it for RHEL 6, and that this change will make it into RHEL 6.