Re: Module management and multiple architectures

I'm not really understanding the problem. What's wrong with keeping the modules (and every single dep) in CVS (why not SVN?!) and do a local user-level install to a separate dir whenever you hit prod? That way, you're doing a clean install to a known place. Sounds like that should "Just Work".

My criteria for good software:

Does it work?
Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?

Comment on Re: Module management and multiple architectures

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Module management and multiple architectures by suaveant (Parson) on Feb 09, 2007 at 19:39 UTC
Well... I was trying to install them into one directory so that pure perl modules only needed to be installed once for all architectures. So my dir structure would be `/perl /perl/sun4-solaris /perl/i686-linux` [download] That is probably asking for trouble, though, since if I installed an arch specific that had files in the base dir on only one machine, or upgraded on only one, it would be there but broken on the other. Probably will just keep them separate but in CVS, either in different modules or in different dirs under the same module. As for SVN, don't get me started. I've been bugging people for a year to let us use SVN and its looking like we might be able to sometime in the near future. - Ant - Some of my best work - (1 2 3)	[reply] [d/l]
Re^3: Module management and multiple architectures by dragonchild (Archbishop) on Feb 09, 2007 at 20:12 UTC
This sounds like a false economy. CPU cycles are MUCH cheaper than developer cycles. Don't waste your time. Plus, as you correctly recognize, upgrades on one arch could break the other. This is assuming that the pure-perl versions of a file will be the same for various installations. You're also assuming the same Perl version with the same Perl compiler switches. Much safer just to install locally on every machine. My criteria for good software: Does it work? Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?	[reply]
Re^4: Module management and multiple architectures by suaveant (Parson) on Feb 09, 2007 at 21:43 UTC
Yeah, of course, it seems kind of silly to even have the arch-specific directory in real world situations... if anything it should ALL be in arch-sepcific, or at least, the modules that have an arch specific piece should be entirely under the arch dir. - Ant - Some of my best work - (1 2 3)	[reply]