Seems to me that provided the source is freely available, the fact that the packages are, for convenience, also available in binary form, is irrelevant. And if it isn't that way, it should be, and the licensing needs fixing.
I see no advantage to an .msi over a .ppm. Nor have I ever seen anyone ask for one.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
Personally, I like PPM's current incarnation just fine and see no need for Windows Perl modules to be distrubuted as .msi's. But that's just me. I can definitely see some people, especially Windows admin types wanting to handle Perl module installation that same way the do all other software on their system, with .msi files.
--DrWhy
"If God had meant for us to think for ourselves he would have given us brains. Oh, wait..."
| [reply] |
Any reason why we don't do that with Perl 5 modules?
ActiveState//http://strawberryperl.com/ adopted the same approach, single .msi for base install, then maintain with ppm between releases.
A .msi for each module is just busy work. | [reply] |