From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
Date: 2003-04-08T23:00:20+09:00
Subject: Re: Call for standardised package installation procedure

On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 10:11:28PM +0900, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
> apt-get and the like should be nothing more than models for what needs
> to be achieved for Ruby library management.  I'm happy to be proven
> wrong, though.  Is there are precedent?  Some Perlers love the CPAN
> shell, others hate it, but does anyone use apt-get to install their
> Perl modules?

I sometimes use FreeBSD ports to install Perl modules, where the port
exists. In general, though, I install/compile manually.

Downside: I don't have a 'repository' showing which Perl packages I've
installed and what their versions are; so if I rebuild the system from
scratch I must remember to reinstall all the libraries I needed.

Upside: I can always get and install the latest version of a Perl package,
without having to wait for ports to catch up; and I have access to all
packages, even those not wrapped by FreeBSD. This is usually the overriding
concern.

From that point of view all I need is a standardised './configure; make;
make install' type of approach.

I'm not sure I like the idea of Ruby keeping a separate
installed-packages-repository database. It could work, but then there would
be three different types of packages that could be installed:

  - packages using the O/S package management system (e.g. RPMs or FreeBSD
    ports)
  - packages using this language-specific package management system
  - packages which didn't support either and were installed manually

At least, until such time as the Ruby package management system was so
widely deployed that all RAA modules used it, *and* all the O/S package
management systems were just wrappers around it.

Regards,

Brian.