•Re: Module::Build article on perl.com, MakeMaker is doomed

[merlyn]

Module::Build will not get my support until there's a replacement for h2xs -AXn Module::Name that builds the templates to use Module::Build rather than ExtUtils::MakeMaker.

When I last checked, Schwern wasn't planning one of these. But it must be done before the new module can fully replace the old.

Similarly, CPANPLUS doesn't support o conf-style directives to change minor configuration things without going through a fullblown configuration. I can't support CPANPLUS replacing CPAN.pm until this option is available.

I'm not sure why people believe they can change-out core modules without providing at least as much as what was working in the past. {sigh}

Yes, I know, "patches welcome". That's not the point here.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

[autarch]

Module::Build will not get my support until there's a replacement for h2xs -AXn Module::Name that builds the templates to use Module::Build rather than ExtUtils::MakeMaker.

That's easy enough to fix. I'll try to remember to send the author of ExtUtils::ModuleMaker a patch to support Module::Build. I much prefer eumm to h2xs.

I'm not sure why people believe they can change-out core modules without providing at least as much as what was working in the past. {sigh}

I'm not sure why people believe that a plan to replace a core module doesn't include doing exactly this. In other words, I don't think anyone is planning to throw Module::Build, in its current state, into the core. The goal is to get all the functionality it needs, then put it in the core.

[tachyon]

It would help if you could install Module::Build on Win32 with either CPAN or PPM.... On what I would regard as a very stock Win2K server with 5.6.1 (as above) you can't. Well I take that back. Of course you can but I don't have the time to patch something I am in no rush to use.

cheers

tachyon

s&&rsenoyhcatreve&&&s&n.+t&"$'$`$\"$\&"&ee&&y&srve&&d&&print