On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:44:56PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 02/06/2013 05:07 PM, Steven Roberts wrote: > >So I've been thinking about pulp backend ideas. > > > >perl modules came to mind after thinking about the puppet-modules and > >some conversations on the IRC channel about ruby gems or python > >packages. > > > >Not sure if python or ruby have arch specific binary packages like > >perl does. > > > >So thought about how the consumer client would do things. typically > >like with the rpm type it would provide yum repos for use. for > >perl, the CPAN client installer expects to install from source > >and then build locally. > > > >but that defeats what I am seeing would be the big win of having > >the modules in a pulp repo and that is having the consumer just > >install the content and not have to build it. > > FWIW, the Python community is currently working on a cross-platform > binary format precisely due to this problem. With the hassles of > compiling anything on Windows, the arcane pieces of software > scientists like to rely on, and people using Python's packaging > system rather than the OS one in order to have a platform neutral > deployment solution, "end user always builds from source" just isn't > cutting it any more. > > Details of the proposal are at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0427/ > > Once that is in place, a Python implementation would look a lot more > like the RPM solution, with sdists and wheels in place of source and > binary RPMs.
interesting. yeah, in that case the python wheel setup could get a pulp backend and deploy python packages without needing compilers and such on every consumer. Steve _______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
