[ic] Gentoo ebuild
emailgrant at gmail.com
Fri Nov 3 21:35:28 EST 2006
> > [snip]
> >> > I'm not sure I agree with you here. I think most Gentoo users would
> >> > rather see each Perl module pulled in separately. For example,
> >> > if someone already has all the necessary Perl modules installed,
> >> > there is no need to pull in BundleInterchange. I do think that
> >> > BundleInterchange deserves its own ebuild in Portage though.
> >> >
> >> Well, if dev-perl/BundleInterchange contained nothing but a list of
> >> dependencies then it would act in the same way as the CPAN
> >> Bundle::Interchange bundle. Each module ebuild would be installed
> >> individually, according to the dependency tree.
> > Ah, I didn't realize CPAN modules could work that way. I don't know
> > much about them at all. Depending on InterchangeBundle instead of the
> > individual modules still sounds like adding an unnecessary layer
> > though.
> Layers are good, especially in this instance. It allows the easy
> installation of the modules for someone who wants to install IC
> themselves. If you don't have that layer, then in order to accomplish
> the same thing you'd still need to have an ebuild for the modules, plus
> you'd have to maintain the exact same set of modules in the interchange
As far as having the InterchangeBundle ebuild available for someone
who wants to install IC manually, I agree. We were disagreeing on
whether the IC ebuild should depend on the individual modules or
InterchangeBundle. The only reason to have it depend on
InterchangeBundle that I can see is negating the need to maintain the
set of modules needed for IC in both the IC ebuild and
InterchangeBundle. That's probably a good enough reason.
To All: Please chime if you have an opinion one way or the other.
> >> If a user already has all of the required modules then nothing would
> >> happen. If the user wants Interchange then the dependency tree would
> >> drill through the bundle to find the modules. If the user just wants
> >> the bundle (so that IC can be installed manually) then that option would
> >> be available too.
> > I definitely agree that Interchange::Bundle needs an ebuild. I should
> > be able to put one of those together a lot more quickly. It'll be a
> > good warm up.
> Well, there ya go, then.
More information about the interchange-users