Packaging programs (as opposed to modules)

bigmacbear has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

I've read How do you package your programs? and a buncha other nodes regarding installation and distribution and haven't found quite what I'm looking for.

Basically, I would like to install a set of scripts, man pages, CGI programs, and compiled (C) wrapper executables for setuid purposes. I'd like

the stuff that needs to be in people's PATHs to go into $PREFIX/bin and its (processed) POD in $PREFIX/man/man1,
the stuff that doesn't (like the setuid wrappers, the scripts that need to get wrapped, and the stuff that runs out of cron) to go in $PREFIX/sbin and its POD in $PREFIX/man/man1m,
the configuration files for all this to go in $PREFIX/etc, and
the CGI programs (if Apache is installed) to go in $SERVER_ROOT/cgi-bin.

ExtUtils::MakeMaker seems ill-suited for this. It wants to put everything either in $PREFIX/bin (POD in $PREFIX/man/man1) or $PREFIX/lib (POD in $PREFIX/man/man3). It also wants to make modules rather than bundles of scripts. While modular programming is laudable (and I did actually split out much of the functionality into modules), installing applications rather than modules seems beyond the scope of MakeMaker. And Module::Build doesn't seem to understand this either.

I suppose what I'm looking for is a more general-purpose installation tool along the lines of GNU Configure, but less complicated to use and more suited to Perl. Any suggestions?

Comment on Packaging programs (as opposed to modules) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Packaging programs (as opposed to modules) by samtregar (Abbot) on Apr 15, 2004 at 19:07 UTC
It sounds like you're trying to distribute a web application. You might be interested in reading this: Installation System Design for a Large Apache/mod_perl Application. The design described there is being used, with some modifications, in Krang. So far it's worked very well for us. -sam	[reply]
Re: Re: Packaging programs (as opposed to modules) by u235sentinel (Hermit) on Apr 16, 2004 at 16:11 UTC
Forgive my ignorance but I thought a package was a module. Is this not the case? I am reading through Oreilly's "Perl Objects, References and Modules". There was a chapter which discussed "Packages". It sounded like a regular module. Or am I just not getting it? Thx	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Packaging programs (as opposed to modules) by bigmacbear (Monk) on Apr 16, 2004 at 17:23 UTC
"Packaging" in this sense is putting together a set of application-level scripts, configuration files, etc. in a form suitable for distribution and installation. In other words, I am using the word "package" in one of its common English senses and not in its Perl sense. If I'm not mistaken, in Perl (5), every module is a package, but not every package is a module. The "package" keyword simply defines a non-default name space in which to put variables, functions, and/or methods. It can be used within an ordinary script, but is usually used at the top of a module's .pm file to define the name space of the module using the module's name.	[reply]
Re: Packaging programs (as opposed to modules) by waswas-fng (Curate) on Apr 15, 2004 at 16:12 UTC
Mail::Spamassassin installs modules, scripts, compiled executables and man pages. Maybe take a look at that for hints on how to do it for youself? I am sure the CVS tree for it has the installer generator info. -Waswas	[reply]