Re: Do Pure Perl CPAN packages really need to use ExtUtils::Command::MM?

Comments:

* There are still fans of MakeMaker out there, for example Matt S. Trout was defending it in a talk I heard last year. Maybe it is not so legacy as you think

* What is the sense of two installers if everyone has to support both?

* Machines where old perl versions operate usually don't get much new software. But if the maintainers of those machines are allowed to install your modules, why shouldn't they be allowed to also install Module::Build (which "works fine on perl 5.005" according to the docu) ?

So I would recommend going with (b)

Comment on Re: Do Pure Perl CPAN packages really need to use ExtUtils::Command::MM?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Do Pure Perl CPAN packages really need to use ExtUtils::Command::MM? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 05, 2011 at 17:44 UTC
it works fine on perl 5.005 if you can install a few additional modules If that is the case, then why does Module::Build require a Perl of at least 5.6.1? The Changes file says that requirement was added in 2008.	[reply]
Re^3: Do Pure Perl CPAN packages really need to use ExtUtils::Command::MM? by jethro (Monsignor) on Apr 06, 2011 at 12:10 UTC
I couldn't find a 'require version' or 'use version' line in the source code of Module::Build. There is only that single line in the changelog. You might ask schwern about it or send the maintainers a bug report. The documentation only says that since 5.6.0 all prerequisites are included in core, but works fine on 5.005. Anyway, does that change much? Companies that still use a pre-5.6.0 versions are usually so conservative that they don't allow any modules from CPAN anyway	[reply]
Re^4: Do Pure Perl CPAN packages really need to use ExtUtils::Command::MM? by Anonymous Monk on Apr 06, 2011 at 22:13 UTC
Look at the first line of Module::Build's Build.PL or Makefile.PL.	[reply]


laziness, impatience, and hubris
	PerlMonks