On Oct 1, 2008, at 5:11 AM, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:04:02 +0300, Gabor Szabo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
BTW Could I somehow install all the dependencies of a module but not
the module itself?
You mean like you File::HomeDir requires newest MakeMaker and maybe
more but
Steve Hay wrote:
Ken Williams wrote:
Hi all,
After much tireless work by Eric Wilhelm and lots of feedback from
patient nonpatient users alike, I'm pleased to announce that version
0.30 of Module::Build is now on CPAN. This is the first non-beta
release in a long time.
Thanks, applied to
* Bill Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-30T23:07:22]
I wasn't talking specifically about anything... the recent discussion about
the above led me to post, but I was talking in general about the tendency of
module authors to be, in my opinion, overly eager to have dependencies on
other modules.
* Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-01 13:45]:
I bet more CPAN authors are the same way.
Yeah. I often vacillate a great deal about adding dependencies:
• I hate making things harder to install. I’m also loathe to give
up control if I can’t trust that the delegated responsibility
is
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Ricardo SIGNES [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-01 13:45]:
I bet more CPAN authors are the same way.
Yeah. I often vacillate a great deal about adding dependencies:
• I hate making things harder to install. I’m also loathe to give
up control if I
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Adam Kennedy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, inc::Module::Build needs to not only be able to know that the
installed one is newer than it, but that if that is the case it should
use an entry point to loading Module::Build specifically for that it.
I'll say it
Ken Williams writes:
I'll say it again though: there is no such thing as
inc::Module::Build. We're not just putting M::B in an inc/ directory
and loading it.
The semantics we're working on for people to use are:
use lib 'inc'; # Where latest.pm lives
use latest 'Module::Build'; #
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 04:56:32PM +0200, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
So there are several competing forces at play: how big is the job
I need done? Is it going to affect the API I expose? How good is
the module I am considering? How big? How many dependencies does
it in turn have? How much do
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what if the bundled version of latest.pm is buggy and I already have
a later latest.pm installed on my system? That will use the wrong one!!
latest.pm doesn't ever get installed on anyone's computer. If you
install it, we
* Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-01T12:15:04]
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what if the bundled version of latest.pm is buggy and I already have
a later latest.pm installed on my system? That will use the wrong one!!
latest.pm doesn't ever
# from Ken Williams
# on Wednesday 01 October 2008:
The semantics we're working on for people to use are:
use lib 'inc'; # Where latest.pm lives
use latest 'Module::Build'; # Knows to look in inc/bundled/
Um, isn't that 'inc/inc_*', or did I miss a memo?
--Eric
--
Moving pianos is
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Ricardo SIGNES
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-01T12:15:04]
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:12 AM, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But what if the bundled version of latest.pm is buggy and I already have
a later latest.pm
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ricardo: there's no such thing as installed latest.pm. Please go
back and read what I wrote above.
If I understand correctly, latest.pm isn't a module on CPAN, thus is
never installed only bundled.
I.e. It's not
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:38 PM, David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I understand correctly, latest.pm isn't a module on CPAN, thus is
never installed only bundled.
I.e. It's not only::latest (http://search.cpan.org/dist/only-latest)
Correct?
Correct. It's only executed as part of the
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Eric Wilhelm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# from Ken Williams
use latest 'Module::Build'; # Knows to look in inc/bundled/
Um, isn't that 'inc/inc_*', or did I miss a memo?
Yeah, latest.pm is currently looking in any inc/inc_* for bundled
stuff, but that strikes
* Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-01T21:34:28]
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Ricardo SIGNES
latest.pm doesn't ever get installed on anyone's computer. If you
install it, we have a backup plan for that too - the guys in black
coats will come and take your computer away.
Well,
* Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-01 17:05]:
Installation and dependency chains are an issue best solved in
the context of _applications_.
That just moves the problem, though: an that uses modules with
lots of dependencies will demand more build engineering effort.
Regards,
--
* Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-02 04:10]:
It's only executed as part of the build system, not ever
installed. In this respect it's just like any code that's in
the Build.PL or t/*.t.
But those are written and maintained by the author. Wouldn’t it
make more sense to make latest.pm
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
* Dave Rolsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-10-01 17:05]:
Installation and dependency chains are an issue best solved in
the context of _applications_.
That just moves the problem, though: an that uses modules with
lots of dependencies will demand
# from Ricardo SIGNES
# on Wednesday 01 October 2008:
I will admit that bugs in latest.pm (which I have not seen, but can
imagine) are less likely than bugs in Module::Install (which I have
seen, and wish I could not imagine).
Please see the run-down of usage, and link to sample distribution:
20 matches
Mail list logo
