perl INSTALLDIRS=vendor

[Chip Turner]

Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta at iki.fi> writes:

> On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 01:01 +1100, Alan Milligan wrote:
>
>> I'm having a few problems source compiling a number of perl modules.  I
>> don't really like this vendor concept, whats wrong with site_perl??
>
> The modules come from a vendor -> they should go into vendor install
> dirs.  Site install dirs are for local site installs so that admins can
> override system installed stuff a la "perl -MCPAN -e install Foo-Bar"
> and traditional tarball install.  (Moving site_perl in /usr/local/...
> would make this clearer FHS-wise.)

I like that idea.  A lot.  I'd not thought about it til now, but that
makes a tremendous amount of sense.  It would also address the manpage
issue, I think.  It would break backwards compatibility, though, with
older RPMs (unless we still looked in the /usr/lib/.../site_perl/
dirs, but I'm inclined not to).

> In my experience, a lot of bug reports containing the magic string
> "perl" in bugzilla.redhat.com or here do not tend to draw much
> attention.  Hopefully there will be something that the community can do
> about it in future FC.

That's my fault.  I don't get much time to spend on perl as I would
like.  Now that CVS is exposed, though, I'm hoping I get more help
from the community :)

There are a TON of perl bugs at this point.  Many are no longer valid,
but many are.  I need to triage them all, but that would likely take
more time than fixing most of the ones worth fixing, I suspect.
Perhaps it would be better to start a general thread on perl and perl
module packaging, and go from there, see what people like/don't like,
etc.

btw perl 5.8.6 should be in rawhide tonight or tomorrow.

Chip

-- 
Chip Turner                   cturner at redhat.com
                              Red Hat, Inc.