Hi all:
I just wanted to take a few minutes to thank everyone for their
discussion, particularly Michael Schwern (maintainer of
ExtUtils::MakeMaker among others) and Adam Kennedy (maintainer of
Module::Install among others).
I know this question comes up time and time again, and I had
personally
2009/5/6 Jonathan Yu jonathan.i...@gmail.com:
The real question at hand here is: for modules that provide both a
Makefile.PL and Build.PL, which should be preferred? More than that,
from the perspective of CPAN authors, is it even useful to provide
both? Now that Module::Build is a core
Adam Kennedy wrote:
2009/5/6 Jonathan Yu jonathan.i...@gmail.com:
The real question at hand here is: for modules that provide both a
Makefile.PL and Build.PL, which should be preferred? More than that,
from the perspective of CPAN authors, is it even useful to provide
both? Now that
On Tue, 5 May 2009 19:09:30 -0700
Bill Ward b...@wards.net wrote:
The way I've interpreted that in my own auto-build scripting is that if
Build.PL exists, the module author is probably a Module::Build user who is
only providing a Makefile.PL grudgingly for the sake of those who haven't
Hi wise Perl authors:
I've been building some Perl packages for Debian. I've noticed in the
course of this that dh-make-perl (our preferred script for
transforming Perl distributions into Debian packages) prefers
Makefile.PL over Build.PL.
One problem this has caused is that a Makefile is
The way I've interpreted that in my own auto-build scripting is that if
Build.PL exists, the module author is probably a Module::Build user who is
only providing a Makefile.PL grudgingly for the sake of those who haven't
installed Module::Build, and thus I figure that if there's any difference
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Jonathan Yu jonathan.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Add to this some complication from Module::Install, which also uses
Makefile.PL. So in that case maybe Makefile.PL is preferred (for
Module::Install to do its thing) rather than Build.PL. (On the other
hand, I don't
