This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-01-09
- From: "Rafael Kitover" <rkitover at hotmail dot com>
- To: <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:11:06 -0800
- Subject: Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-01-09
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:04:45 +0100 Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> To get a nice listing in the 'All' view in the Setup chooser we should
> use the RH style so all perl related packages are listed together.
Seems most people are in favor of the RH style, and that is a good point
about the 'All' view. Updating libwin32 to reflect name change, will
post URLs shortly.
> Though I don't object in a separate category for perl modules I think
> it is not really needed, the most perl packages will fit in one of the
> existing categories and I don't plan to include more modules for now.
> The most modules from CPAN can be compiled without modifications,
> there are only few modules of general interest which are difficult to
> compile. So there is no need to include these modules where it is
> sufficient to be online and fire up a CPAN shell and key in `install
Agreed, in the case of actively developed CPAN modules, submitting a
patch to the maintainer so that the module installs directly from CPAN
seems to be the ideal solution. In certain pathological cases like this
one, where a great deal of work would be required to get changes merged
upstream (but is nonetheless planned) while the code already works and
may be useful to people, having Cygwin packages would be nice.
Another example of a good Perl module to have packaged is Perl/Tk:
Although in the latter case we are pretty far from being able to offer a
package like that. If it becomes doable, those interfaces move from
being just possible with a great deal of pain to available for users to
P.S.: thanks for the vote Yaakov :)