On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 02:29:00PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > I'm still working out the deps for the new version of biber - I have > > them all now (more than 100 _plus_ LWP), including those needed at > > runtime and for testing, it's just a question of which (minor) > > dependencies need which other minor dependencies. At a guess, > > probably no more than 5 levels of dependencies. And I'm not > > bothering to separate runtime deps. > > > > And some of the (many) perl module developers are less reliable than > > others - frequent new releases, sometimes severely changing the > > dependencies. > > [...] > > > > Any alternative views ? > > > > My understanding is that the issue at hand is due to biblatex-biber. I am > not in favor of a massive increase in the perl modules page to just > accommodate one relatively minor package. > > I think a section in biblatex-biber discussing the issue and suggesting > using cpan for the biber required modules would be sufficient. > > Another option is to just drop the biblatex-biber portion of the book. If a > user needs it, there is always install-tl-unx. Adding a huge tail of > dependencies is really only needed for biber developers. >
Having beaten biber itself into shape, I'm reluctant to see that go to waste by using the binary. Equally, I'm not keen on telling people to use cpan. If people want to use cpan after looking at the deps, that is fine (I used cpan myself when I first built Mail::SpamAssassin). I'll go back to mapping out the deps. > If it is dropped, it can be supplemented by a hint that does not need to be > updated every time a perl module is updated. > Again, -1. ĸen -- `I shall take my mountains', said Lu-Tze. `The climate will be good for them.' -- Small Gods -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
