Re: [64bit] Biber packaging questions

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Jun 12 10:10, Ken Brown wrote:
> Here are my questions:
> 
> 1. Should these build prerequisites be added to the 64bit distro?
> Otherwise it will be difficult for others to rebuild biber from
> source.

In theory, yes.  Ideally for 32 and 64 bit, even if you don't really
need it for 32 bit.

> 2. Biber requires perl 5.16 or later, so I did a quick and dirty
> build of perl-5.16.3.  By "quick and dirty" I mean that I simply
> took Yaakov's perl.cygport and removed all patches that wouldn't
> apply.  This is no problem for *users* of biber.exe, since the
> latter includes the perl DLL.  But again it makes it difficult for
> others to replicate the build until the official perl is updated.  I
> have no idea what to do about this.

AFAIR Reini wrote something about perl 5.16 having some serious bugs,
or problems which makes it unfeasible for the distro.  Reini, can you
chime in here?

> 3. There is a completely different approach I could take.  Namely, I
> could simply package Biber as a perl module and forget about packing
> it into a Perl Archive.  If I do this, then users will need perl
> 5.16 or later, as well as most or all of the perl modules listed
> above, so the RFU will have to wait for a perl update; but that's
> probably not serious.  Would this be preferable?  I'm not aware of
> any Linux distros that do this, though someone did do it
> unofficially for Fedora:
> 
>   http://www.linux.cz/pipermail/texlive/2012-August/000563.html

I would say that's up to you, but it doesn't really sound like the
right thing to do.

> Ken
> 
> P.S. I'm copying Philip Kime, the Biber developer.  He should
> probably be kept in the CC for all replies.

Yep, hi Philip!


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat