Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Re: Re^7: Module::Build and the PPM

by autarch (Hermit)
on May 19, 2004 at 21:00 UTC ( #354761=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: Re^7: Module::Build and the PPM
in thread Module::Build and the PPM

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?

Heh, that's funny. The mails saying EU::MM shouldn't be modified except for maintenance have mostly come from Michael Schwern, who is the maintainer for EU::MM. He says this based on his experience actually maintaining the EU::MM code. See his presentation MakeMaker is DOOMED for details.

Of course, nothing stops you from taking over new development of EU::MM. I'm sure Michael would be willing to discuss it with you.

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.

I think "lots of people" is a gross overstatement. In fact, I don't think Ken has ever said it will happen "real soon now". The few people I've seen discussing putting M::B in 5.10 were Hugo van der Sanden, the 5.10 pumpking, and maybe a few other people on the p5p list. I know that Ken hasn't been pushing this. His attitude has always been that it can go in the core when a pumpking thinks it's ready.

As to removing EU::MM entirely, I really don't think anyone has ever proposed that. There are tons of older modules on CPAN that aren't going to be updated with a Build.PL file anytime soon, and those should still be installable with 5.12.

I really wonder who you've been talking to, because I know you haven't gotten any of these strange ideas from Ken, me, or other people who've contributed to M::B.

So as long as the intention is to ultimately replace EU::MM with M::B then I am essentially forced to use it.

The intention is to provide a better way of installing modules, and to replace EU::MM in the sense that people willingly choose M::B. EU::MM is not going away, and will never be removed from the core, even if it is not actively developed with new features.

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.

You seem to have some really, really strange unfounded ideas about this stuff. Maybe I should tell Ken about that, but if you have a real complaint, I encourage you to tell him yourself.


Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re^7: Module::Build and the PPM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re^7: Module::Build and the PPM
by ysth (Canon) on May 23, 2004 at 07:05 UTC
    I think "lots of people" is a gross overstatement. In fact, I don't think Ken has ever said it will happen "real soon now". The few people I've seen discussing putting M::B in 5.10 were Hugo van der Sanden, the 5.10 pumpking, and maybe a few other people on the p5p list. I know that Ken hasn't been pushing this. His attitude has always been that it can go in the core when a pumpking thinks it's ready.
    I'm one of the few other people; as far as I can see, there's a vicious spiral going on; Hugo (and please correct me if I'm wrong) would like to see it stable before going into bleadperl. Until it gets into bleadperl, it won't get fixed to work on "minor" platforms. Until it works on all platforms, it isn't stable. The answer, to me, is to stick it in, perhaps converting a sampling of the core modules to be built with it, and deal with the failures.

    In the meantime, it's a little scary seeing how many modules are using Module::Build without any clue how portable it actually is.

    Mea culpa: I've occasionally tried it on cygwin and had many test failures; I haven't had time to look further into them and been reluctant to report them without at least a making a stab at providing a patch. FWIW, on a current cygwin snapshot, using the stock cygwin perl release, I get:

    Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- +--------- t/compat.t 57 1 1.75% 53 t/install.t 27 1 3.70% 20 t/manifypods.t 22 5632 21 38 180.95% 3-21 t/runthrough.t 28 6 21.43% 14-17 19-20 1 test skipped. Failed 4/10 test scripts, 60.00% okay. 27/188 subtests failed, 85.64% +okay.

      I think it would be helpful if the interface is basically stable before it goes into the core. I wouldn't expect it to be bugfree on all platforms where perl builds.

      Hugo

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://354761]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (8)
As of 2014-07-22 16:34 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (119 votes), past polls