Re: Ivy.pm: name change? to upload on CPAN
On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 03:31:21PM +0100, Christophe MERTZ wrote: [Changing Ivy to Net::Ivy] BTW: I do not know if this discussion is still appropriate in the mailing list, as I am new on it. Let me know... I don't have an answer to your question about how to do it, but I do think that the discussion is appropriate to this list, as getting this list to work out the the best way making this change will help future authors. This won't be the last time someone asks the list this question for an existing module, and the recommendation is to make this sort of rename. Nicholas Clark
Re: ExtUtils::MakeMaker or Module::Build
Hi Yves, I just became aware of this thread after returning from a long honeymoon. On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 05:43 AM, Orton, Yves wrote: Personally my feeling is that Module::Build isn't mature enough for release ready code. Yeah, but that threshold is different for different people and different projects. For instance, I use it for Class::Container, but not for ExtUtils::ParseXS. The fact that without manual intervention what it produces isnt compatible with CPAN is IMO a serious argument against using it, and poses serious questions in my mind about its suitability in 5.10. That's not quite true. There's a mechanism for providing a pass-through Makefile.PL, specifically (though not exclusively) for CPAN.pm compatibility. The concept of isn't compatible is also a matter of degree, not a black white issue. My opinion is that for most common operations it is quite compatible, though I of course know there are some areas where it isn't. Another serious issue with Module::Build is that for the last ages on Win32 it doesnt. Have a look at the transaction report of trying to install it (using itself) from CPAN. It doesnt play nicely with CPAN's prerequisite system, (a Makefile.pl program would have caused CPAN to autoload these prerequisites on my system by default) and fails build. This is actually an unfortunate bug in version 0.21 on Win32. Other previous versions have worked fine, and I believe this specific issue has already been fixed in CVS. So even though version 0.21 looks pretty bad, in general Module::Build is supposed to work there (and everywhere else). -Ken
Re: ExtUtils::MakeMaker or Module::Build
On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 07:00 AM, Orton, Yves wrote: Frankly until Module::Build works seamlessly by default with plain old CPAN I would advance the opinion that it will never replace MakeMaker, and potentially in the long run leave the community divided, with those of us who can using Module::Build and those of us who cant or need to ensure backwards compatibility not. I personally dont think that the balkanization of CPAN is a fair price for the changes that Module::Build brings. Well, consider that Module::Build has become backward-compatible into areas that MakeMaker has never been able to penetrate at all. MacPerl on Mac OS (not OS X), for example. And because it doesn't have to know obscure facts about operating systems that its authors don't even have access to, a single version of Module::Build can work on perls from 5.005 up to 5.8.2. Now if a concerted effort was made to ensure that Module::Build easily installed everywhere (as seen with the prerequisites and Win32 build failure it does not) and that _every_ distribution produced by Module::Build was installable via CPAN.pm then I would feel much more confident about its future. The former is a good goal. As for the latter, that's really up to the author of the distributions, they get to decide how their distributions should be installed. I agree that Module::Build should try to help as much as it can, though. -Ken
