6:28 p.m.
Hey all --
We're starting to have a greater number of packages geared towards Perl
development... Given that it'd be nice to have them all easily presented
for those so inclined, I thought it might be nice to have a "Perl
Development" comps.xml group. There's precedent for this (e.g.
java-development, kde/gnome/x/web-software-development), and we do have a
number of packages that lend themselves nicely:
perl-core
git-cpan
cpan-upload
perltidy
perl-Task-Catalyst
vim-perl-support
etc...
I don't think it would make sense to try to include all the 1,000+ perl-*
packages out there; this group could be used to highlight the "upper level"
stuff while those so inclined could still do a "yum install 'perl-*'".
Thoughts? If this sounds good, I'll see about getting one in there...
after the string freeze is up, that is. :-)
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
2:42 a.m.
On 04/10/2009 01:28 AM, Chris Weyl wrote:
Hey all --
We're starting to have a greater number of packages geared towards Perl
development... Given that it'd be nice to have them all easily presented
for those so inclined, I thought it might be nice to have a "Perl
Development" comps.xml group. There's precedent for this (e.g.
java-development, kde/gnome/x/web-software-development), and we do have a
number of packages that lend themselves nicely:
perl-core
git-cpan
cpan-upload
perltidy
perl-Task-Catalyst
vim-perl-support
etc...
I don't think it would make sense to try to include all the 1,000+ perl-*
packages out there; this group could be used to highlight the "upper level"
stuff while those so inclined could still do a "yum install 'perl-*'".
Thoughts? If this sounds good, I'll see about getting one in there...
after the string freeze is up, that is. :-)
-Chris
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
Hello,
I was thinking about list of packages from Task::Kensho to put them in
subpackages like perl-core which requires the base perl modules. So I
wanted create subpackage f.e. perl-Task-Kensho-Testing which install all
testing packages mentioned in Task::Kensho on cpan.
But creating group in comps sounds better. Which packages do you want to
include? Maybe choose the best rated from cpan?
Regards,
--
Marcela Mašláňová
BaseOS team Brno
3:15 a.m.
Marcela Maslanova wrote:
On 04/10/2009 01:28 AM, Chris Weyl wrote:
> Hey all --
>
> We're starting to have a greater number of packages geared towards Perl
> development... Given that it'd be nice to have them all easily presented
> for those so inclined, I thought it might be nice to have a "Perl
> Development" comps.xml group. There's precedent for this (e.g.
> java-development, kde/gnome/x/web-software-development), and we do have a
> number of packages that lend themselves nicely:
>
> perl-core
> git-cpan
> cpan-upload
> perltidy
> perl-Task-Catalyst
> vim-perl-support
> etc...
>
> I don't think it would make sense to try to include all the 1,000+ perl-*
> packages out there; this group could be used to highlight the "upper
> level"
> stuff while those so inclined could still do a "yum install
'perl-*'".
>
> Thoughts?
I am not excited about this plan, because I feel there is no
"common
subset" of package which is general enough to be used as "devel group"
in comps - I feel much of what you say above is based on your personal
individual demands.
E.g. the list you provide above isn't even close to what I use for
perl-development. I think these are likely what you use for your
individual purposes.
But creating group in comps sounds better. Which packages do you want
to
include? Maybe choose the best rated from cpan?
I am very much opposed to doing
this. Let's treat perl packages like all
others and let keep dependencies as minimal as posible and do not try to
add further dependency bloat through comps.
Ralf
4:24 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2009 01:28 AM, Chris Weyl wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts?
I am not excited about this plan, because I feel there is no "common subset"
of package which is general enough to be used as "devel group" in comps - I
feel much of what you say above is based on your personal individual
demands.
E.g. the list you provide above isn't even close to what I use for
perl-development. I think these are likely what you use for your individual
purposes.
I'm inclined to agree - it would certainly be impossible to decide on
a Perl Development group that would be suitable for everyone.
But it would be nice to have a group of things that might be
interesting to developers without being forced to wade through more
than 1200 individual '*perl*' rpms (and still missing eclipse-epic if
you were looking for an IDE).
It's a shame that PackageKit (at least the gnome ui) doesn't seem to
let you dig inside groups, but last I looked, anaconda still gives you
the chance to select individual packages. And, of course, the more
experienced can always use yum groupinfo.
--
Iain.
5:05 a.m.
* Iain Arnell [10/04/2009 11:49] :
I'm inclined to agree - it would certainly be impossible to decide on
a Perl Development group that would be suitable for everyone.
+1
But it would be nice to have a group of things that might be
interesting to developers without being forced to wade through more
than 1200 individual '*perl*' rpms (and still missing eclipse-epic if
you were looking for an IDE).
If the goal is "here are the Perl modules we recommand you use", I'm
not sure it makes sense to make it Fedora-specific (other than making
sure all the modules are present in the repo, of course). Maybe this is
a task for the larger Perl community?
Emmanuel
11:23 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Emmanuel Seyman <
emmanuel.seyman(a)club-internet.fr> wrote:
* Iain Arnell [10/04/2009 11:49] :
>
> I'm inclined to agree - it would certainly be impossible to decide on
> a Perl Development group that would be suitable for everyone.
+1
And that's definitely not the goal here :)
> But it would be nice to have a group of things that might be
> interesting to developers without being forced to wade through more
> than 1200 individual '*perl*' rpms (and still missing eclipse-epic if
> you were looking for an IDE).
If the goal is "here are the Perl modules we recommand you use", I'm
not sure it makes sense to make it Fedora-specific (other than making
sure all the modules are present in the repo, of course). Maybe this is
a task for the larger Perl community?
No, the goal here would be "put individual packages that can assist in Perl
development in one place so they can be easily found." e.g. upper-level
ones like cpan-upload or vim-perl-support. Right now, they're sort of
scattered, and there isn't an easy way for someone new to Fedora (or
evaluating it to say), "OK, what tools does Fedora have to help me?" I
don't actually envision individual perl-* packages being in there, with the
possible exception of the Task packages. (e.g. perl-Task-Catalyst, which
bills itself as "This package ensures everything you need to write serious
Catalyst applications is installed. Install this if you're interested in
developing Catalyst apps.")
Think of it as "a package should be in this group if it's reasonably related
to Perl development and it's not just one of the zillion perl-* packages."
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
11:15 a.m.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Iain Arnell <iarnell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Ralf Corsepius
<rc040203(a)freenet.de>
wrote:
>>
>> On 04/10/2009 01:28 AM, Chris Weyl wrote:
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>
> I am not excited about this plan, because I feel there is no "common
subset"
> of package which is general enough to be used as "devel group" in comps -
I
> feel much of what you say above is based on your personal individual
> demands.
>
> E.g. the list you provide above isn't even close to what I use for
> perl-development. I think these are likely what you use for your
individual
> purposes.
I'm inclined to agree - it would certainly be impossible to decide on
a Perl Development group that would be suitable for everyone.
But it would be nice to have a group of things that might be
interesting to developers without being forced to wade through more
than 1200 individual '*perl*' rpms (and still missing eclipse-epic if
you were looking for an IDE).
That's where I was going with this. The packages I listed certainly aren't
comprehensive -- and I hope I didn't give that impression -- just meant to
be a starting point for discussion. The packages an individual person uses
clearly vary, well, by person, but I don't think it's difficult to classify
something as a "thing[] that might be interesting to developers".
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
5:29 p.m.
Chris Weyl wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Iain Arnell
<iarnell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That's where I was going with this. The packages I listed
certainly aren't
comprehensive -- and I hope I didn't give that impression -- just meant to
be a starting point for discussion. The packages an individual person uses
clearly vary, well, by person, but I don't think it's difficult to classify
something as a "thing[] that might be interesting to developers".
Well, I
don't see much practical use for this.
In real world perl development starts with a set of very few
individually chosen perl-modules, which gradually (often very slowly)
evolves over time.
Ralf
7:36 p.m.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
Chris Weyl wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:24 AM, Iain Arnell <iarnell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
That's where I was going with this. The packages I listed certainly
> aren't
> comprehensive -- and I hope I didn't give that impression -- just meant to
> be a starting point for discussion. The packages an individual person
> uses
> clearly vary, well, by person, but I don't think it's difficult to
> classify
> something as a "thing[] that might be interesting to developers".
>
Well, I don't see much practical use for this.
Then fine, don't use it :-)
In real world perl development starts with a set of very few
individually
chosen perl-modules, which gradually (often very slowly) evolves over time.
Again, I'm not suggesting this be a group for including individual perl-*
packages, but "packages reasonably related to Perl development and ... not
just one of the zillion perl-* packages."
-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
9:26 a.m.
Chris Weyl wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Ralf Corsepius
<rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
> Chris Weyl wrote:
> In real world perl development starts with a set of very few
individually
> chosen perl-modules, which gradually (often very slowly) evolves over time.
>
Again, I'm not suggesting this be a group for including individual perl-*
packages,
Again, I read you proposal as you wantint to add comps group, containing
a set of packages, which likely is are the basis of _your_ work.
but "packages reasonably related to Perl development and ...
not
just one of the zillion perl-* packages."
Define "reasonably" - I
have no idea what this could be.
To me, Perl is a collection of loosely connected modules rooted at "core
perl". There is no "perl-SDK" - All such collections would be more or
less arbitrary and random.
Ralf
5530
days inactive
5532
days old
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Chris Weyl -
Emmanuel Seyman -
Iain Arnell -
Marcela Mašláňová -
Ralf Corsepius