Re: perl_vendor

["Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz@users.sourceforge.net>]

On Sat, 2012-08-04 at 10:18 +0200, Achim Gratz wrote: 
> [Summary of previous discussion] I think that each perl module
> distribution should have its own Cygwin package.

Agreed wrt perl_vendor, although I'm not sure that we even need some of
these modules (unless they are just dependencies of others).  I would
start with the modules currently in perl_vendor before adding any others
that you need. 

> I am aware that splitting perl_vendor up into individual packages would
> require great effort and I fully understand that you don't want to
> shoulder that alone.  As a transitory measure with much less impact, the
> distributions inside perl_vendor could each get empty packages that
> depend on perl_vendor (sort of the reverse of what I've been doing with
> my umbrella package), which would at least make it more explicit what is
> available even though the install (and update) still happens en bloc.
> If you like this idea better, I should be able to provide corresponding
> Cygwin packages (or just the definitions, whatever your preference) in
> about two weeks.

I don't see any reason to do this.

> Moving a distribution out from perl_vendor into its own package later on
> (LWP springs to mind, which is about the only distribution that I update
> with some regularity) would require a coordinated release of two
> packages, but that seems manageable.

As long as you break up perl_vendor all at once, it will be.  Other
modules can be added later.

> As for taking over maintainership of all (or the majority) of these perl
> distribution packages: I am open to the idea in general, but would want
> to have a co-maintainer in the beginning and I would need access to a
> build host at least for the XS modules.  The cygport definitions I have
> in hand certainly need some more work before they would be good for
> general release, but so far I've got zero feedback on them.

cygport 0.11.0 should make it much easier to maintain this quantity of
Perl modules, since it can now generate setup.hint files with
appropriate requires: automatically.  I don't think Cygwin READMEs are
necessary for these either.

As for the .cygport files, they look good for the most part, but your
dependency checks could be replaced by the simpler DEPEND syntax.

Let me know if I can be of further assistance with this.


Yaakov