Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:15:25 -0500 From: Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net> To: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> Cc: Josef Karthauser <joe@tao.org.uk>, Will Andrews <will@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: CPAN ports (was Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT modules) Message-ID: <20010104141524.D5959@netmonger.net> In-Reply-To: <20010104170549.B95679@mithrandr.moria.org>; from nbm@mithrandr.moria.org on Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 05:05:49PM %2B0200 References: <200101040011.f040B6i84505@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010104140442.G481@tao.org.uk> <20010104162313.A74304@mithrandr.moria.org> <20010104143542.L481@tao.org.uk> <20010104164406.A82823@mithrandr.moria.org> <20010104150018.M481@tao.org.uk> <20010104170549.B95679@mithrandr.moria.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[perhaps this should take place on -ports] On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 05:05:49PM +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: > On Thu 2001-01-04 (15:00), Josef Karthauser wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 04:44:06PM +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote: > > > > > > Yes, it fetches a tarball, runs a common "make" command, and then a > > > "make install" analogue command. Sounds a lot like what ports does. > > > > > > The only difference CPAN really makes is I think autonegotiating > > > dependencies. If we can grab that, chuck it into the port, then we'll > > > have an automatic CPAN module port creator. > > > > > > There's no reason to use two systems when an existing system can > > > arbitrarily include the other. (CPAN also requires some interactive > > > configuration, and may need other tweaks that are already performed to > > > or by the ports system. It's somewhat unnecessary, I think.) > > > > What I'm more thinking about is that at the moment it's not possible > > to install a p5- port unless it exists and N(p5-ports) < N(cpan modules). > > Can't we find a way of doing away with _all- the p5-ports and replacing > > them with some cpan magic? > > If you don't want ports, why not just use CPAN? CPAN works just fine. > I just like and use ports because they auto-generate packages, use the > same package management tools, and they're all on my local distfiles > mirror (the closest CPAN mirror is a whole 2 hops further!). I think the point that's trying to be made here is that it would be extremely cool if it were possible to make the ports system automatically say "Ah, you're looking for p5-FooBar", and invoke the CPAN module to build and install it. Particularly if we could find a way to generate the appropriate package magic (consider: CPAN modules already come with packing lists) so that once it is installed, it could be managed with the existing pkg_ tools. It sounds Hard, and it may involve some patches to the CPAN module, but it would A: eliminate the wasted space and inodes of a gazillion p5-* ports, and B: instantly make (almost) all CPAN modules part of the ports collection. Again, it's not that we don't want to use the ports system, it's that we don't want to have to have a port for every CPAN module when there may be a way to interface FreeBSD's ports to CPAN. I'm sure the other free operating systems with package management systems would be interested in the same thing. Perhaps one of them already has a solution or has started on this. -- Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonger Communications chris@netmonger.net info@netmonger.net http://www.netmonger.net Free yourself, free your machine, free the daemon -- http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010104141524.D5959>