Re: Lancaster Consensus, deal with PUREPERL_ONLY=0

On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:40:14PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote:
> > 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.

There exists installations that can run PP dists, but not XS dists.
There is no such thing as an installation that *cannot* run a PP
implementation.

The "give me only the PP version, even if XS is available and installable
on my system" choice is useful when preparing a fatpacked installation.  I
do not see any gain in specifying "give me XS or give me death".  Not every
dist is XS-based, so is not going to work out in most cases, anyway.

I'm wondering why it isn't always possible to split a dist into two
implementations, one PP and the other with XS optimizations. If the dist
simply cannot be implemented using pure Perl (Moose, for example), then
surely the right thing to is simply refuse to install on PP systems?  

Can you clarify what the usecases are here?  That is, /achieve?