[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Pulp-list] pulp backend thoughts -- perl modules?

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:44:56PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 05:07 PM, Steven Roberts wrote:
> >So I've been thinking about pulp backend ideas.
> >
> >perl modules came to mind after thinking about the puppet-modules and
> >some conversations on the IRC channel about ruby gems or python
> >packages.
> >
> >Not sure if python or ruby have arch specific binary packages like
> >perl does.
> >
> >So thought about how the consumer client would do things.  typically
> >like with the rpm type it would provide yum repos for use.  for
> >perl, the CPAN client installer expects to install from source
> >and then build locally.
> >
> >but that defeats what I am seeing would be the big win of having
> >the modules in a pulp repo and that is having the consumer just
> >install the content and not have to build it.
> FWIW, the Python community is currently working on a cross-platform
> binary format precisely due to this problem. With the hassles of
> compiling anything on Windows, the arcane pieces of software
> scientists like to rely on, and people using Python's packaging
> system rather than the OS one in order to have a platform neutral
> deployment solution, "end user always builds from source" just isn't
> cutting it any more.
> Details of the proposal are at http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0427/
> Once that is in place, a Python implementation would look a lot more
> like the RPM solution, with sdists and wheels in place of source and
> binary RPMs.


yeah, in that case the python wheel setup could get a pulp backend
and deploy python packages without needing compilers and such on
every consumer.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]