note
Corion
<p>I don't buy the "Module::Build will Just Work" crap. I have seen how it doesn't work on Win32, and mostly because of unixisms used. So if the New OS is unlike Unix, Module::Build will <i>not</i> Just Work.</p>
<p>I don't think that Module::Build needs to be extensible. Period. It should get my modules installed. My modules could be installed by a glorified shell script, and if I was keen about worrying, I could use [cpan://ExtUtils::Command] to replicate the functionality myself instead of relying on EU::MM. But I don't want to do that, and EU::MM already works.</p>
<p>I hear [Schwern] talking when you say <i>Module::Build is the future of build in Perl</i>. Module::Build may indeed be the future of Perl, but it will never be the future of build in Perl5. Perl6 has the luxury of starting from a clean slate and not having to worry about previous bad decisions. Perl5 has <tt>PREFIX=</tt>.</p>
<p>All the devs keep complaining that nobody uses Module::Build, and then keep complaining again when shortcomings get reported. They also complain about how bad EU::MM is, and they complain that their work on Module::Build is not recognized. I see a pattern there, and I guess that comes into play when considering on what I spend my time.</p>
<p>The Module::Build cabal thinks itself the herald of the future (and behaves like it). This makes them blind and deaf against their users. Which is bad if you wantneed a large user base. If Module::Build does not provide an easy migration path for <i>both</i>, modules and existing installations, it will not go anywhere. And I have not seen any consideration of the Module::Build cabal for existing Perl installations. And the cabal cannot take the hint from the complainers that don't use Module::Build. Because, usually, after two or three complaints, people keep using what they used before (EU::MM) instead of putting up with the Module::Build cabal.</p>
458282
458675