On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 at 11:16, Ovid <curtis.poe@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 9:21â¯AM Ovid <curtis.poe@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't think anyone is disagreeing that some action would be welcome >> here. In other words, having the perl core support something around package >> *and* application management. >> >> Is there general agreement that something should be in core for this? >> >> I *think* we might be at the point where a pre-PPC is warranted, unless >> this thread is considered to be one and a PPC is asked for instead. >> > > While I think about this, a closely-related issue is publishing to the > CPAN. I feel sorry for any new developer who's written a module they think > they can publish. I now use dzil. It's amazing, but I wouldn't wish it on a > new developer. For my modules that *don't* use dzil, I still get PRs > because I've screwed up something or other in the packaging. > > Should there be clear guidance or support for that in the core? > Honestly let's leave that subject out of this thread Ovid, at least for as long as possible. Build processes are a controversial discussion. At least some of us would much prefer if everything was plain simple EUMM, at least some of us strongly favour Module::Build, and at least some of us strongly favour Dist::Zilla wrapping one or the other. All three approaches are very much oriented towards *library* development (IMO), and since this thread is about applications I think we should avoid mixing discussions about them together for as long as possible so as to avoid unnecessary controversy. Lets focus on building rough consensus[1] about what we should do in the future until we have a plan that everybody agrees on. At some point the discussion will have to be had, but lets focus on what unites us, not on what divides us until we have enough consensus that the disagreements dont stall out the entire subject. cheers, Yves [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7282 -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"Thread Previous | Thread Next