Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-10 Thread Ask Bjoern Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Sugalski) writes: [...] It's an ongoing fight between the go get the libs and install them folks and the self-contained distribution folks. I'm in the latter category. :) As Larry said, self-contained is good for users. For developers (and CVS) go get the libs is

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-07 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 4:45 PM +0100 3/4/04, Michael Scott wrote: On 4 Mar 2004, at 15:51, Dan Sugalski wrote: [...] I'd like to remove non-modified, non-parrot Perl modules from lib and install them via CPAN.pm. No. Sorry, definitely not. Parrot's config isn't going to install perl modules off the 'net any more

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-07 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 11:49 AM -0800 3/4/04, Robert Spier wrote: I'd like to remove non-modified, non-parrot Perl modules from lib and install them via CPAN.pm. No. Sorry, definitely not. Parrot's config isn't going to install perl modules off the 'net any more than it's going to run apt-get on systems that

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-06 Thread Michael Scott
On 6 Mar 2004, at 05:31, Robert Spier wrote: [...] The problem isn't today. It's the trend and next month, when someone decides they need to add some other module, and has a precedent to follow. Then, suddenly we end up with 30 different modules included in our distribution, each one changed

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-05 Thread Jeff Clites
On Mar 4, 2004, at 7:50 PM, Robert Spier wrote: IMHO, the releases better include everything necessary to build the application, within reason. Consistency and simplicity counts for a lot. Why create headaches we don't need? within reason. Thats where we're way off right now. Let's keep a bit

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-05 Thread Robert Spier
within reason. Thats where we're way off right now. Let's keep a bit of perspective here. The non-Parrot:: contents of lib accounts for only 4.6% of the non-ICU content (and only 1.5% if you count ICU in the total size). It's difficult to see that as unreasonable, or as bloat. The

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Michael Scott
On 7 Feb 2004, at 00:53, Michael Scott wrote: On 6 Feb 2004, at 22:32, Leopold Toetsch wrote: - icu - lib/Test/* - lib/Pod/* are all standard thingys. I'm not thinking that we are gonna reinventing wheels nor that we are gonna copying existing wheels, so I'd vote for just removing all that from

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 3:40 PM +0100 3/4/04, Michael Scott wrote: On 7 Feb 2004, at 00:53, Michael Scott wrote: On 6 Feb 2004, at 22:32, Leopold Toetsch wrote: - icu - lib/Test/* - lib/Pod/* are all standard thingys. I'm not thinking that we are gonna reinventing wheels nor that we are gonna copying existing

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Michael Scott
On 4 Mar 2004, at 15:51, Dan Sugalski wrote: [...] I'd like to remove non-modified, non-parrot Perl modules from lib and install them via CPAN.pm. No. Sorry, definitely not. Parrot's config isn't going to install perl modules off the 'net any more than it's going to run apt-get on systems

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Jeff Clites
On Mar 4, 2004, at 7:45 AM, Michael Scott wrote: On 4 Mar 2004, at 15:51, Dan Sugalski wrote: [...] I'd like to remove non-modified, non-parrot Perl modules from lib and install them via CPAN.pm. No. Sorry, definitely not. Parrot's config isn't going to install perl modules off the 'net any

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Robert Spier
I'd like to remove non-modified, non-parrot Perl modules from lib and install them via CPAN.pm. No. Sorry, definitely not. Parrot's config isn't going to install perl modules off the 'net any more than it's going to run apt-get on systems that support it. We either provide it or do

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Larry Wall
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 03:40:27PM +0100, Michael Scott wrote: : I'd like to remove non-modified, non-parrot Perl modules from lib and : install them via CPAN.pm. I have a version here which works, but I : remember from experience it can be tricky to set up CPAN.pm to work : behind firewalls,

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. Sorry, definitely not. Parrot's config isn't going to install perl modules off the 'net any more than it's going to run apt-get on systems that support it. We either provide it or do without. What about ICU. There is already a new version pending

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Robert Spier
No. Sorry, definitely not. Parrot's config isn't going to install perl modules off the 'net any more than it's going to run apt-get on systems that support it. We either provide it or do without. What about ICU. There is already a new version pending (again). Since we haven't actually

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Mitchell N Charity
There's no reason to include large, independently maintained modules like Pod::Simple in the parrot CVS tree and tarball. It just turns into a maintenance nightmare, should we ever start modifying these things. [...] I don't understand why you are insisting on including these

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Robert Spier
The determinism seems perhaps worth the bloat. It's quite localize bloat after all. I disagree. We _want_ a heterogeneous environment -- a homogeneous environment doesn't exist in the real world -- most of your concerns were with tracking down the issues. Since we have parrotbug now (or real

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Josh Wilmes
At this point in the development cycle you can certainly make such arguments (although I would tend to fall on the side of consistency myself, at least for things that really Don't Matter in the grand scheme of things, such as POD modules). But once we start expecting people in the real world

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-03-04 Thread Robert Spier
But once we start expecting people in the real world to compile this thing on their boxes in order to install perl, it would be extremely foolish to make them manually download and install perl6 + parrot + icu + perl5 + cpan modules 1 through 10, all from different sources. Try building

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-02-06 Thread Leopold Toetsch
Robert Spier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pod::Simple is relatively easy to subclass. And Sean is pretty receptive to changes. [ more referenced source inside ] - icu - lib/Test/* - lib/Pod/* are all standard thingys. I'm not thinking that we are gonna reinventing wheels nor that we are gonna

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-02-06 Thread Michael Scott
On 6 Feb 2004, at 22:32, Leopold Toetsch wrote: - icu - lib/Test/* - lib/Pod/* are all standard thingys. I'm not thinking that we are gonna reinventing wheels nor that we are gonna copying existing wheels, so I'd vote for just removing all that from CVS. yep All non-trivial packages have some

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-02-06 Thread Michael Scott
Suppose I could make a few changes to Pod-Simple, then our problem would be solved. But, being serious, say I'd decided to use Template-Toolkit, it would never have occurred to me to shove all of that in CVS. It always surprised me a that ICU was there, rather than just what was needed to get

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-02-06 Thread Robert Spier
Suppose I could make a few changes to Pod-Simple, then our problem would be solved. Pod::Simple is relatively easy to subclass. And Sean is pretty receptive to changes. never have occurred to me to shove all of that in CVS. It always surprised me a that ICU was there, rather than just

Re: [DOCS] Documentation tools

2004-02-05 Thread Michael Scott
Ah, ok, my bad then. I'd just assumed that, apart from any need for modification, the other things were there simply to save having to tell everyone to go off and get them. I don't intend to change Pod-Simple if I can possibly help it, so it's ok by me to delete lib/Pod, if that's the