Re^2: Build.PL versus Makefile.PL

[ajt]

in reply to Re: Build.PL versus Makefile.PL
in thread Build.PL versus Makefile.PL

I also posed the same question on use.Perl. I got a selection of opinions there too.

There are advantages to Module::Build, in particular on platforms without compilers, e.g. Windows and it will apparently become the "standard". However the traditional method is more tested and far more common.

In my case I just need to fiddle with the Makefile.PL and make it add optional tests. Basically I need a bunch of modules to test the code, they aren't actually need to use it, so I don't like making them pre-requisits if I can help it. I prefer to use Module::Build, it is easier for me but I'll have to maintain both...

[Corion]

Why don't you just write your tests to skip if the required module is unavailable? I have many tests that basically do:

my $can_run;
my $reason;
BEGIN {
    $can_run = eval {
        require My::Module;
        require Some::Other::Module;
        1;
    };
    $reason = $@;
};

use Test::More;

if (! $can_run) {
    $reason ||= "no reason given";
    plan skip_all => "Prerequisite module not found ($reason)";
    exit;
} else {
    plan tests => 42;
};

...

Also, I find the idea of "standard" amusing/confusing - does that mean that all modules currently using ExtUtils::MakeMaker will go out of existence or that people will hurry to Module::Build because nobody cares about compatibility with older versions of Perl anymore?