in reply to Re^2: Module management and multiple architectures
in thread Module management and multiple architectures

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:
  1. Does it work?
  2. Can someone else come in, make a change, and be reasonably certain no bugs were introduced?
  • Comment on Re^3: Module management and multiple architectures

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom