From owner-freebsd-perl@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 14 17:00:09 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: perl@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FA7660; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:00:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from swills@mouf.net) Received: from mouf.net (mouf.net [IPv6:2607:fc50:0:4400:216:3eff:fe69:33b3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82A0E273E; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:00:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mouf.net (swills@mouf [199.48.129.64]) by mouf.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9EGxxtG002021 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:00:05 GMT (envelope-from swills@mouf.net) Received: (from swills@localhost) by mouf.net (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r9EGxxMP002020; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:59:59 GMT (envelope-from swills) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:59:59 +0000 From: Steve Wills To: Frederic Culot Subject: Re: With or without .packlist? Message-ID: <20131014165958.GA1899@mouf.net> References: <20131010061045.GP16964@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20131010081342.GC26820@culot.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131010081342.GC26820@culot.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mouf.net [199.48.129.64]); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:00:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=4.5 tests=none autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mouf.net X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.8 at mouf.net X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: perl@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-perl@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: maintainer of a number of perl-related ports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 17:00:09 -0000 On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:13:42AM +0200, Frederic Culot wrote: > Hi, > > > Hi guys, > > > > With the staging support, we can properly decide what we do pack or not inside > > the packages, the question now is do we keep the .packlist (in that case they > > need to be fixed because they are full of stage path :)) or should we just drop > > those files and no package them at all. > > > > It seems to me that most of the other operating systems are not packaging. > > > > I have no clue what what those .packlist files are useful for, so I do have no > > opinion, would be nice to get a perl@ claim on this soon, as we either need to > > fix them or nuke them. > > > > btw: sunpoet has a PR I'm sitting one because of that: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/182806 > > > > regards, > > Bapt > > >From my own experience (which is far from extensive in this matter), the > .packlist files are used for two different purposes. > > The first one is related to the management of modules via ExtUtils::* > utilities (ExtUtils::Installed and ExtUtils::Packlist are the ones I am > aware of), such as inventory management of modules. > > The second one is related to the building of standalone package, via > modules such as App::FatPacker. One may use those to bundle a script and > all its dependencies into a single standalone package, and to do so the > .packlist files are relied upon. > > For the first use, I believe the .packlist files can safely be removed, > because FreeBSD already provides all the necessary tools to perform such > inventory management. But for the second use I am not sure... If we are > to remove .packlist files we may end up with users complaining they > could not bundle their scripts anymore (I already heard such complains > from gentoo users for instance). But there might by other ways to > package modules and dependencies which do not require .packlist files to > be present. > > >From my own perspective, I believe the benefits we would get from > removing those .packlist files (mainly easier integration with staging) > exceeds the drawbacks, and I would agree to drop them. I'm somewhat on the fence, but if fixing the paths is troublesome, dropping them is fine, IMHO. Steve