| |||||||||||||
On properly packaging perlOn properly packaging perlPosted Aug 24, 2009 13:26 UTC (Mon) by zsouthboy (subscriber, #60295)Parent article: On properly packaging perl
I'm not familiar with perl - can someone explain why they would bother stripping modules out of the standard distribution of perl?
I don't know CPAN, etc., but this sounds like the equivalent of leaving out a standard part of the language, right? Like packaging python (which I am familiar with) without, say, the Math library?
How can you expect your perl script to run anywhere if the default libraries can't be depended on?
(Log in to post comments)
On properly packaging perl Posted Aug 24, 2009 14:38 UTC (Mon) by djpig (subscriber, #18768) [Link] I'm not familiar with perl - can someone explain why they would bother stripping modules out of the standard distribution of perl?Here on my Debian lenny system perl + perl-modules + perl-base currently use about 36MB, of which perl-base uses 4.6 MB. And perl-base gives you a fully functional perl interpreter... Sure, on a modern server or desktop 36MB is not a lot, but Debian tries to support as many use cases as possible, and so it makes sense to define a basic set of perl modules that are always available, so people can use them in e.g. package scripts without needing to depend on the full Perl. (The split in perl and perl-modules I can't explain, but they depend on each other so you can't install one without the other anyway)
On properly packaging perl Posted Aug 27, 2009 2:50 UTC (Thu) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
"perl-modules" is architecture-independent whereas "perl" is architecture-dependent since it contains native code. Separating the two saves space in the archive and its mirrors, and on multi-arch installation media.
On properly packaging perl Posted Aug 24, 2009 15:22 UTC (Mon) by bferrell (subscriber, #624) [Link]
How about python without setuptools. Suse 11.1 does that... And I'm a Suse fan!
On properly packaging perl Posted Aug 28, 2009 19:39 UTC (Fri) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link]
> I don't know CPAN, etc., but this sounds like the equivalent of leaving
> out a standard part of the language, right? Like packaging python > (which I am familiar with) without, say, the Math library?
Python's actually similarly split in Debian based distros.
[1] like perl-base is on all Debian derivatives. I just wonder why one is
|
|||||||||||||