Re: Another question re: 2.0

[Ian Goodacre <..hidden..>]

On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 12:27 -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
> What do folks think about moving to CPAN as a distribution mechanism
> for 2.0 and perhaps only seeing Sourceforge as for bundle
> distributions?

I think CPAN works very well for distribution of Perl modules to be
installed to the standard library folders but it is less effective for
other components of an application. While there are workarounds to the
limitations/focus of CPAN, none that I have seen are very elegant.

While all of LedgerSMB could be embedded in Perl modules, I think
several components are best handled otherwise: templates, configuration
files, localization and maybe even database initialization scripts
(SQL), though I could be swayed on the last.

Is there a problem with current distribution methods?