When a git user runs into a problem, they look at the tools they
have on hand and ask, “how can I combine these ideas to solve my
problem?” When a mercurial user runs into a problem, they look at
the problem and ask, “what code can I write to work around this?”
They are very different approaches that may end up at the same
place, but follow alternate routes.
I therefore suggest two responses:
(a) Either Perl 5 Porters (i.e. Rik as Pumpking) or TPF should
contact Fedora/Redhat packagers and inform them of our concerns.
I'm not saying that TPF should slap them with a "cease and desist"
(though that would certainly be emotionally satisfying), but I do
think we should "officially" raise concerns that splitting out core
libraries is not viewed as acceptable by upstream and that we do
not feel it is in the spirit of the license.
(b) p5p should finally bite the bullet and write the spec for
"minimal perl" (whatever we finally think that is) and we should
then offer that to packagers as a sanctioned minimal distribution
as a compromise to response (a). We should also be clear about
binary package naming -- i.e. a minimal perl should not be packaged
-- David Golden
to post comments)