On Sunday 28 September 2008 06:38:44 Matt S Trout wrote:
Never mind, I'll go back to waiting for it to be five years from now and
the toolchain to have worked round this brain damage.
That's not helpful. When a project doesn't release a new version, some people
say Oh, don't use it! They
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Adam Kennedy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, configure_requires doesn't exist until
there's prod release of both CPAN.pm and CPANPLUS that support it.
Once there is, THEN we can draw a line under it, call it done, and
start recommending the
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 11:33:09AM -0500, Ken Williams wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Matt S Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was told it was a planned feature when KWILLIAMS turned up on london.pm
and yelled FUD because I was complaining about users' problems in the
real world
chromatic wrote:
s/Module::Install/Autobundling/
Autobundling is fine for end-user all-in-one no-user-servicable-parts-inside
applications, but the CPAN is not the place for static linking. It would be
nice not to drag Perl kicking and screaming back into the 1970s.
Autobundling is fine
chromatic wrote:
... and how autobundling could possibly be ever a good idea in a CPAN
distribution.
Is autobundling not a nice solution for non-standard modules that you need
for your build? For example, my Module::Install::GetProgramLocations
provides a standard way for finding the correct
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 04:16:33PM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Matt, I've met a lot of people who don't use Module::Build because you said
not to use it. They usually don't know why. There's already enough FUD
flying around without adding to it. Please either give us specifics we can
