Re: Building on Win32 - the real problem

I appreciate your comments and opinions. I will look into them when  
the time comes.

Kartik Thakore

On 31-Aug-09, at 3:01 PM, David Goehrig <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Kartik Thakore<[email protected] 
> > wrote:
>>
>> But it does solve dev env setup for the developer.
>
> Not really, it partially solves the configuration/detection problem
> but still fails the "what the dev really needs" test.  If I'm writing
> software that I want to distribute, then I need a package that I can
> ship and be certain it will work.  The Alien:: approach doesn't do
> this, nor does the CPAN centric approach, specifically because as
> Andreas pointed out so well, the dependencies outside of the scope of
> sdl-perl are myriad and tricky.
>
> If you solve that problem, and provide a shippable package, then the
> dev can code to the shippable package, and know that the software will
> work as advertised.  Otherwise, you're just at the mercy of whatever
> your build environment manages to produce.
>
>> Again atleast we get code out there. CPAN is an easy install for  
>> the most
>> part. Moreover this is a library not an end user app, I don't think  
>> holding
>> back code is warranted.
>
> It you are a dev you can grab the git repository and build.  CPAN is a
> crap way to push dev code out as it dumps shit all over system
> folders.  You are much much better off using the local build
> directories while developing.  As a rule CPAN should only be used as a
> dumping ground for stable code, because non-devs pull from it, and a
> broken CPAN package is not just terribly annoying, it is useless.
>
>
>> But my question is why do we need svg and vnc. Isn't better to  
>> focus on core
>> sdl libs first?
>
> You might not need them, but someone found SVG and VNC useful enough
> to contribute the code.  We should each focus on what interests us,
> but shouldn't remove other people's contributions just because we
> don't find them useful :)
>
>> I agree to this. But we need people to use our code and generate  
>> bug reports
>> now rather then later. Hence CPAN.
>
> This is a very bad idea IMHO, pushing broken things to CPAN so that we
> might get users testing that way is backasswards.  Most people who
> install sdl-perl are doing so to use some other software, not to use
> sdl-perl.  Pushing generally broken software to CPAN only alienates
> people who actually use it.
>
>> Or something that makes a flat binary installer for what ever  
>> platform they
>> need.
>
> Ugh... oh god no!  That way madness lies...
>
>
>
> -- 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- http://blog.dloh.org/