Re: Lancaster Consensus, deal with PUREPERL_ONLY=0
[email protected] (Jens Rehsack)
| Newsgroups | perl.cpan.workers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Am 01.06.2014 um 20:09 schrieb Peter Rabbitson <[email protected]>: > On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 05:59:16PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: >> >> Am 01.06.2014 um 15:03 schrieb David Golden <[email protected]>: >> >>> The only thing specified in the lancaster consensus is what must >>> happen if that command-line argument is true. >>> >>> I think making a distinction between "0" and undefined will be >>> surprising to people and I would recommend against it. >> >> Given this point - how can we give people an instrument to force XS >> and fail if it's not available? > > As I mentioned before - you create a separate ::XS distribution, against > which the outliers declare dependencies. In general "forcing XS" when PP > is available is *always* *invairably* the wrong approach (which is why > they are called outliers above ;) The user must always have a way to enforce or fail. And not every distribution can be split into 2. So please forget the cases where it's possible to split and let's come back to the question: How can we enable the user/packager to make a clear choice? Cheers -- Jens Rehsack [email protected]