As primary an end-user of PDL, I'd like to comment on the texts below. I do not need bleeding-edge support of PDL, just a version that works, preferably an old and proven one. For me, it is important that is updated automatically on system upgrades, and maybe on big upgrades of PDL. Also, updated dependencies should be taken into account automatically, and uninstall should be automated. Only the binaries distribution fit that.
For ubuntu, > 6000 of the 1.6M installations reporting their configuration have installed pdl this way: >> 3) **Ubuntu / Debian**: Run `apt-get install pdl` http://popcon.ubuntu.com/by_inst #10152 pdl 6671 139 6480 51 1 (Henning Glawe) In this respect, I'd like to have a package install given as FIRST possibility, with source installs only if either the platform does not support this, or if bleeding-edge support is needed. Chris Marshall wrote: > On 7/31/2010 4:56 AM, Daniel Carrera wrote: >> Hi Christian, >> >> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Christian Soeller >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> At the top of the 'Get PDL' page we need *simple* instructions >>> >>> 1) how to get the PDL source (CPAN, sourceforge) >> The Manual Install page should cover this (it already covers CPAN). I >> do *not* think that the Get PDL page should be polluted with this >> information. Most people are not going to install PDL this way, and >> those who do want to install PDL this way only have to click one link. > > There are two basic ways to get PDL: > > (1) a standard Perl module install > (2) a binary package install > > and for now, and for PDL-2.4.7, the simplest > way to get and build PDL will be #1: > > (1) download PDL source > (2) extract the PDL-2.X.Y-tar.gz > (3) cd to the directory created > (4) perl Makefile.PL > (5) make > (6) make test > (7) make install > > and if you have the cpan shell installed > and available, the above reduces to this: > > (1) cpan PDL > > Binary packages for PDL are often quicker > to get to but have the disadvantage of > requiring knowledge of the per-platform > package layout, program, and names of required > packages in order to work successfully. > > In fact, the basic source install is the > closest to being identical across all platforms > and having that at the top level is appropriate > to its broad scope and applicability. > > >>> 2) the absolutely minimal install instructions (see generic 3 liner below) >> What if that does not exist? For source installation it may not be >> feasible to explain how to install PDL in 3 lines. I understand and >> support the notion of the Manual Install page having a "Minimal >> Install" section at the top showing how to get the most bare-bones >> installation possible. >> >> >>> This must be all on the page, not just linked to a wiki page. A new > >> user needs to see that a minimal set of commands should result in a > >> quick but minimal install. >> >> I see it differently. If you want to convince someone that PDL is easy >> to install, the *source* installation is *not* the way to do it. Heck, >> most user don't even have a compiler by default! (e.g. Windows, Mac, >> and some Linux distros). > > That can actually be fixed pretty easily with binary > package installs for most platforms. The basic > requirements for PDL to build are: perl and a C > compiler environment. > >> If you want to show a 3-line installation, then it is the binaries >> that you want to use. For example: >> >> 1) **Mac O X**: Download the<link>MacPDL.dmg</link> package and run >> the installer. >> >> 2) **Windows**: Install<link>ppm</link> and run<link>ppm install >> PDL</link> on a terminal. >> >> 3) **Ubuntu / Debian**: Run `apt-get install pdl` >> >> 4) **Fedora / RHEL**: Run `yum install perl-PDL` >> >> 5) **Mandriva**: Run `urpmi perl-PDL` >> >> 6) **OpenSUSE**: Run `yast -i perl-PDL` >> >> >> See? Now you have a *one-line* instruction for every OS. Many of these >> only give you a minimal PDL install, but they are *one-line*. But you >> know, if you wanted to do that, I think we might as well have all the >> full binary instructions. The full binary instructions are not much >> longer than what I wrote. > > I think 3 sections on the "Get PDL" page: one for > a "get source" install, one for a "get binary" install, > and one for "manual install". I would like the > unifying theme of this page to be "Get PDL". Right > now, the best way to "Get PDL" is via the source > build. > > --Chris > > _______________________________________________ > Perldl mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl > _______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
