On 01/04/14 17:29, John R Pierce wrote: > On 3/31/2014 11:13 PM, Tom Robinson wrote: >> I used to stick to the packages only approach but came up against more issues that way. I also spent >> a lot of time compiling and build packages. At the end of the day, CPAN consistently built a very >> tidy environment > the problem with CPAN is its hard to maintain compatibility with > multiple systems, each time you build it, you get something else. once > you build a set of RPMs you can deploy them over and over, and if you > need to update stuff, you can rebuild them with the same spec against a > different system base. > Clearly in Bennet's case he's done his best to use RPMs to manage the perl environment and failed. There's a case here for using CPAN directly. I do understand your point and agree that packaging will give you consistency. If you know what you are doing, CPAN works well, too. It's obvious that both approaches have pros/cons.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
