Re: RPM packaging of modules and multiple perl versions

I do not recommend trying to share modules (packages) at all -- use the entirely different naming scheme to keep things sane. Your <company>-perl-* is good. Another is "local-perl-*", used for example here:

http://packages.endpoint.com

That installs local-perl-Module-Build to /usr/local/, and it can be installed at the same time as perl-Module-Build (/usr).

--DB

Comment on Re: RPM packaging of modules and multiple perl versions

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RPM packaging of modules and multiple perl versions by Anonymous Monk on Mar 29, 2010 at 02:09 UTC
Thank you for the reply. The <company>-perl-Module-Build solution works well for my simple scenario. But I don't think it scales to more than two perl's on one machine. What if I have the system perl (perl-5.8.x), developer perl 1 (perl-5.10) and developer perl 2 (perl 5.12). What is a good way to deal with this? I think taking the RPM naming approach to its logical conclusion means I end up with three packages for the same module, one for each version of perl. Is this what people actually do? I can see the advantage but it seems like a hell of a lot of duplication of effort.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^2: RPM packaging of modules and multiple perl versions
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 29, 2010 at 02:09 UTC

The <company>-perl-Module-Build solution works well for my simple scenario. But I don't think it scales to more than two perl's on one machine. What if I have the system perl (perl-5.8.x), developer perl 1 (perl-5.10) and developer perl 2 (perl 5.12). What is a good way to deal with this? I think taking the RPM naming approach to its logical conclusion means I end up with three packages for the same module, one for each version of perl. Is this what people actually do? I can see the advantage but it seems like a hell of a lot of duplication of effort.

[reply]