perl5.8 fixup

[Marcus Calhoun-Lopez]

Eric Hall <opendarwin.org at ...> writes:

> 
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 01:19:12AM +0000, Marcus Calhoun-Lopez wrote:
> > 
> > Although I do not feel strongly about it, I would still vote for the order
> > site, perl base/core, vendor.
> > It seems that the smaller the change, the better.
> > 
> > For what it's worth, it is the way FreeBSD does is
> > (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/lang/perl5.8/).
> > 
> 
> 	I'm pretty clear that for MacPorts the order
> should be site, vendor, then base.  That way there is
> the ability to (locally, site/user) put modules into
> the first search directory, then MacPorts installed
> modules are found next (from vendor), then the base
> perl modules.

If I understand correctly, we would continue to install all
p5 ports (even conflicting ones) into vendor.
Site would be left empty for the site/user to install modules.
If this is the case, it seems to me we want site to be searched last.
It may not be a likely scenario, but if If the site/user installs a new
conflicting module which breaks a MacPorts package in some way,
portfiles, have no mechanism to select the older one.
The user, however, can always select whichever one he/she wants with PERL5LIB.
 
If the consensus remains site, vendor, then base, I will drop the subject.
 
> 	Note that FreeBSD puts site first *and* puts
> ports-installed perl modules into site, that's probably
> why they don't use vendor.

I missed that, thanks.

-Marcus