Hi,
It has apparently come up before [0], the question of whether
microperl should be removed if it is not expected to compile or
be maintained. If it is abandoned cruft, it should be removed.
Taking the initial intent to simplify the "bootstrap" process at
face value, perhaps there might be some community interest in
reworking the actual Perl build framework instead of maintaining
breadcrumbs for microperl.
There is perl-cross [1] which provides some of the "zero-config"
and cross-compilation features that microperl seemed to intend.
Thoughts?
ZV
[0]: https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters
/2012/08/msg191038.html
[1]: https://github.com/arsv/perl-cross
It has apparently come up before [0], the question of whether
microperl should be removed if it is not expected to compile or
be maintained. If it is abandoned cruft, it should be removed.
Taking the initial intent to simplify the "bootstrap" process at
face value, perhaps there might be some community interest in
reworking the actual Perl build framework instead of maintaining
breadcrumbs for microperl.
There is perl-cross [1] which provides some of the "zero-config"
and cross-compilation features that microperl seemed to intend.
Thoughts?
ZV
[0]: https://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters
/2012/08/msg191038.html
[1]: https://github.com/arsv/perl-cross