On 2/14/06, Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2006, at 5:43 AM, demerphq wrote: > > > On 2/14/06, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > >>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 09:26:06PM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > >>>>>>>>> "chromatic" == chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>> chromatic> On Sunday 12 February 2006 18:32, Randal L. Schwartz > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>> My prefer_installer is EUMM. And the value of mbuild_install_arg > >>>>>> shouldn't > >>>>>> matter, because it should always be using EUMM, not MB. > >>>> chromatic> That's going to be difficult for distributions that only > >>>> provide a Build.PL > >>>> chromatic> file. > >>>> > >>>> I recognize that, but (a) those distros should not exist, so that's > >>> > >>> A couple of months ago I would have agreed. Now I'm not so sure. > >>> If you'd care to take time, I'd be interested in hearing your views > >>> on what level of MB support would be necessary before such distros > >>> should exist. > >> > >> For me it comes down to one simple structural problem (I consider > >> things > >> like PREFIX nigglies that can be fixed). > >> > >> Module::Build (specifically ONLY dists without a Makefile.PL) simply > >> doesn't bootstrap. > > I think I'm coming into this discussion late. =( What do you mean by > "doesn't bootstrap"? M::B does indeed use itself to install itself, so > you must have something else in mind. Could you elaborate briefly to > bring me up to date on this discussion?
My understanding of this (and i hope im not putting words in Adams mouth) is that anybody using an old CPAN can't install a distribution that requires Module::Build unless a Makefile.PL is present. Since this is a big chunk of the cpan's out there it affects a lot of users, and in my experience is one of the reasons that people often get a bad impression of MB on their first exposure as there is a good chance that the first time they notice something uses MB will be when CPAN fails to install because of the missing Makefile.pl > > At the very least the Makefile.pl could create a tiny makefile that > > then runs Build.pl and Build as needed. If someone can explain why > > this is impossible, then id like to hear it. > > We already do that, using the 'passthrough' or 'small' options for > auto-creating a Makefile.PL. See the docs for Module::Build::Compat. > > Module::Build itself also ships with such a Makefile.PL so that > automated tools like CPAN(PLUS) can install it. The point is that if you can get a Makefile.PL based script that can get EUMM to produce a makefile that will then do the MB dance then there should NEVER be a module that omits the Makefile.pl, and the arguments that weve seen to date saying that there are circumstances where such is ok are actually wrong. IOW, no dist should ever be released to CPAN without a Makefile.PL and MB should not allow anyone to create such a dist. There is no need to make the Makefile.PL do any more than signal that MB needs to be installed and then hand over to it to do the dirty work. Such an implementation should work transparently on every CPAN ever released. Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
