Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta(a)iki.fi> 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 Many are no longer valid,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,
btw perl 5.8.6 should be in rawhide tonight or tomorrow.
Chip Turner cturner(a)redhat.com
Red Hat, Inc.