in reply to Re: [perl|DBI] packaging tool with DBI and DBD::Oracle
in thread [perl|DBI] packaging tool with DBI and DBD::Oracle

Good day to you kcott and Thank you very much you are saying that best way is convince the client to install modules right :)
  • Comment on Re^2: [perl|DBI] packaging tool with DBI and DBD::Oracle

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: [perl|DBI] packaging tool with DBI and DBD::Oracle
by McA (Priest) on Mar 28, 2014 at 12:45 UTC

    IMHO at least the DBD::Oracle part. You need the right ORACLE_HOME, you need the right libraries linked. And as soon as the DB admin decides to upgrade his ORACLE installation he has to think about client code too. So, I think putting the DBD::Oracle installation into the responsibility of the DB admin is not a bad idea. And working down 10 lines of installation instruction is a little step compared to an ORACLE upgrade. ;-)

    McA

Re^3: [perl|DBI] packaging tool with DBI and DBD::Oracle
by kcott (Archbishop) on Mar 28, 2014 at 14:56 UTC

    Just to ensure we're on the same page with this, distributing pre-compiled binaries probably isn't a viable solution. Instead, I'm suggesting you distribute the versions of the module source that you've tested your tool with, e.g. DBI-1.631.tar.gz and DBD-Oracle-1.70.tar.gz (the latest versions at the time of writing). In this way, you retain control over the versions of these modules.

    Then the client can install these as needed. You can retain further control over how the installation is performed by supplying an installation script. The guts of this script would probably be along these lines (which is just off the top of my head):

    tar zxvf Module-version.tar.gz > Module-version.INSTALL 2>&1 cd Module-version perl Makefile.PL make make test make install

    This way, you control what is installed and how. You don't need to become physically involved with the installations yourself, e.g. getting access to machines, waiting for compilations & tests to complete, and so on. The extent of that involvement, if you did it youself, would depend on your relationship with your client (which you haven't told us about): on-site or remote access; level of privileges, etc.

    The client does the work but, as that only involves running a script you've provided, would probably make them more inclined to do so. It may even appear that you've done additional work for them which would likely be received positively. Again, all this will depend on your relationship with your client, so I'm guessing somewhat here.

    -- Ken

      McA and kcott, I'm so thankful for your expertise opinions.