Re: Lancaster Consensus, deal with PUREPERL_ONLY=0

Am 01.06.2014 um 20:35 schrieb Peter Rabbitson <[email protected]>:

> On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
> 
> Let me rephrase: making available a "XS-only" choice, when both PP ans XS are 
> available is a mistake. Not just making the choice is a mistake, 
> *presenting it* is a mistake in its own right.

You should explain why that should be a mistake when presenting a "PP-only"
choice is not a mistake. That doesn't make any sense to me.

> Unless you have a clear use case that you didn't mention before ;)

Is "The user makes the choice" not a clear use case? I rate this as _the_ use
case.

Cheers
-- 
Jens Rehsack
[email protected]