Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Module::Build and the PPM

by autarch (Hermit)
on May 19, 2004 at 16:25 UTC ( #354674=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Module::Build and the PPM
in thread Module::Build and the PPM

Why is this option not simply the default then?

I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing because Ken wants people to think about how they want to do this. The passthrough option seems to work reasonably well, but it is doing pretty funky stuff under the hood. The other methods that use a Makefile.PL also have their drawbacks, so it's really up to each developer to decide how they want to handle this.

For something that wants to replace an existing module, I find the lack of migration paths a major deficiency.

Somebody else has created a Makefile.PL => Build.PL converter tat works for simple Makefile.PL scripts. If you're doing something complex in your Makefile.PL, there's obviously no way to automate the conversion.

  • Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Module::Build and the PPM

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Module::Build and the PPM
by demerphq (Chancellor) on May 19, 2004 at 18:25 UTC

    I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing because Ken wants people to think about how they want to do this. The passthrough option seems to work reasonably well, but it is doing pretty funky stuff under the hood. The other methods that use a Makefile.PL also have their drawbacks, so it's really up to each developer to decide how they want to handle this.

    As corion said, the problem here is that a module like M::B shouldnt make each developer decide how to handle this. It should simply default to the solution that breaks the least things and provide an opt out for power users. Breaking CPAN by default is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Somebody else has created a Makefile.PL => Build.PL converter tat works for simple Makefile.PL scripts.

    So wait, if I choose to convert to using Module::Build not only do I inconvenience all of my users who dont have Module::Build, I also lock out the ones who can't get it to work, and as an added bonus get to spend hours converting non trivial Makefile.Pl's over to Build.Pl framework? Gee sign me up.


    ---
    demerphq

      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
      -- Gandhi


      So wait, if I choose to convert to using Module::Build not only do I inconvenience all of my users who dont have Module::Build, I also lock out the ones who can't get it to work, and as an added bonus get to spend hours converting non trivial Makefile.Pl's over to Build.Pl framework? Gee sign me up.

      So don't freaking use it. Sheesh, no one has ever said "run out and convert all your existing modules, especially the ones that have heavily customized Makefile.PL files".

      OTOH, if you're writing a new module, or looking into adding custom bits to a Makefile.PL for an existing module, then Module::Build is probably worth looking at, as creating a customized build/install process with it is much, much easier than with EU::MM. I've done both, so I'm in a good position to know.

        Sheesh, no one has ever said "run out and convert all your existing modules, especially the ones that have heavily customized Makefile.PL files".

        No? You mean all those mails ive seen saying EU::MM shouldnt be modified except for maintenance and that any new development efforts should occur in M::B, and that all those posts ive seen saying EU::MM and CPAN will be replaced by M::B and CPANPLUS by 5.10 dont count?

        It seems to me that lots of people have been intimating that M::B should replace EU::MM Real Soon Now™ so when 5.10 comes out presumably EU::MM will be deprecated, and by 5.12 itll be removed. So by that time ill have to support both people who wont or cant use M::B and those who dont have EU::MM.

        So as long as the intention is to ultimately replace EU::MM with M::B then I am essentially forced to use it. And given the issues raised, the problems of backward compat etc, im afraid that im not real confident in the Brave New world that the M::B folks seem to want to bring to me.

        Really, save your time here. Go talk to Ken. Tell him that the Build.pl _sucks_ and that a lot of people hate it and that its very likely that policy of breaking CPAN is having a backlash against the whole effort. Talk some sense into the M::B crew and I promise youll see a lot of folks who have negative feelings about it turn in to its biggest champions.


        ---
        demerphq

          First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
          -- Gandhi


Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://354674]
help
Chatterbox?
holli is about to take the first hit since a month and this weed is strong shit. Should my head explode, someone call 911.
[ambrus]: And even when I traveled on a big plane for a long flight, it had 3 seats, then corridor, then 4 seats, then corridor, then 3 seats, so less than half of the people sit between two other dudes.
[1nickt]: you are missing an entire element, which is that your base ticket price only gets you a middle seat. If you want to be window or aisle you must pay, or gamble that you'll be assigned there at ...
[1nickt]: ... flihght time (hoping that not enough others have paid and there are some "good" seats to be allotted.
[1nickt]: And this is in addition to paying extra if you want to be in the first 12 rows, or in the emergency exit row.
choroba was once seeted besides a guy that was so fat he was almost squished between the guy

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (12)
As of 2017-12-18 13:42 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    What programming language do you hate the most?




















    Results (486 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?