Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta@xxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 01:01 +1100, Alan Milligan wrote:
>
>> I'm having a few problems source compiling a number of perl modules. I
>> don't really like this vendor concept, whats wrong with site_perl??
>
> The modules come from a vendor -> they should go into vendor install
> dirs. Site install dirs are for local site installs so that admins can
> override system installed stuff a la "perl -MCPAN -e install Foo-Bar"
> and traditional tarball install. (Moving site_perl in /usr/local/...
> would make this clearer FHS-wise.)
I like that idea. A lot. I'd not thought about it til now, but that
makes a tremendous amount of sense. It would also address the manpage
issue, I think. It would break backwards compatibility, though, with
older RPMs (unless we still looked in the /usr/lib/.../site_perl/
dirs, but I'm inclined not to).
> In my experience, a lot of bug reports containing the magic string
> "perl" in bugzilla.redhat.com or here do not tend to draw much
> attention. Hopefully there will be something that the community can do
> about it in future FC.
That's my fault. I don't get much time to spend on perl as I would
like. Now that CVS is exposed, though, I'm hoping I get more help
from the community :)
There are a TON of perl bugs at this point. Many are no longer valid,
but many are. I need to triage them all, but that would likely take
more time than fixing most of the ones worth fixing, I suspect.
Perhaps it would be better to start a general thread on perl and perl
module packaging, and go from there, see what people like/don't like,
etc.
btw perl 5.8.6 should be in rawhide tonight or tomorrow.
Chip
--
Chip Turner cturner@xxxxxxxxxx
Red Hat, Inc.
