Re: ISO: History of this effort?

From: Nathan Torkington <[email protected]>
> Problems:
>  - a lot of sites only install the standard distribution, meaning that
>    lots of good modules go unused or are installed redundantly

Hmm, so the idea here is to come up with an 'addendum'; an 'enhancement';
some collection of software which is very useful and which has some sort
of 'blessing' by some powers that be.

>  - CPAN isn't quality controlled, so admins don't know which are the
>    good modules to install

What criteria should be used to quantify 'good'?

> 
> Solution:
>  - prepare a bundle of good and useful modules that admins can install
>    if they want a full installation of Perl (the SDK)

What do you mean by "SDK"?  Software Development Kit?  Software Distribution
Kit?  Standard Distribution Kit?  Stuff i'd Druther you install Kit? <grin>


>  - the current standard distribution stays as a minimal install of
>    Perl

With, I assume, new foot dragging before items are included?


> My gut feeling is that the only thing that can go from the current
> standard distribution is the .pl files.  Once we've shipped something,
> it has to be seriously broken before we can consider removing it.
> The SDK is a collection of high-quality wide-appeal CPAN modules.


With, it appears from the couple of proposals I have seen to date, no
regard as to what 'category' of software it is.

So, for instance, just because a number of items have been lumped into 
some Bundle, the entire Bundle may be recommended as being included.


Okay.  What kinds of things, other than broken code, would NOT go into
the SDK?

What about platform specific code?  Would Solaris only, or Windows only,
or Mac only code be included?  Or would there in fact be platform specific
SDKs, which would include some common code and also some platform
specific code?
-- 
Larry W. Virden                 <URL: mailto:[email protected]>
<URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/> <*> O- Save us from the snobs.
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should 
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
-><-