Re: perl-5.18.2-1

[Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>]

On 5/2/2014 4:21 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:
> Reini Urban writes:
>> It's vastly easier to keep perl_vendor than to split it up.
>
> I've been looking at the test package for the upcoming 5.18.2 release
> announced in http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-announce/2014-04/msg00038.html
> and I'd like to contest that assertion again.
>
> TL;DR: I still propose to keep each Perl distribution as a separate
> package (yes, I'm willing to ITP them)

+1

> and move perl_vendor to an
> umbrella package that simply bundles those individual packages plus
> perhaps a README.

I'm not even sure that such an umbrella is needed.  Maintainers of 
packages that rely on Perl modules can simply use cygport to determine 
which perl-* packages are required.  I don't see the need for a 
perl_vendor package that brings in some arbitrarily chosen collection of 
Perl modules.

Reini, I know you think it's more work to split up perl_vendor than to 
keep it as is, but Achim has offered to do the work.  And it would make 
things much easier for those of us who maintain packages that require 
Perl modules.  With the current bundling, we have to check for each 
required module whether or not it's included in perl_vendor.  I just did 
this for biber, and it's very tedious.  I hope you'll reconsider.

Ken