Other suggestions for modules that need an updated toolchain? (was latest.pm, Module::Build, etc.)

2008-10-02 Thread David Golden
I've been following the threads here and on p5p about autobundling for Module::Build, using latest.pm etc., and I have to say that the I find the growing complexity required to be backward compatible a bit disturbing. As some have noted, CPAN.pm supports configure_requires and CPANPLUS will soon,

Re: Other suggestions for modules that need an updated toolchain? (was latest.pm, Module::Build, etc.)

2008-10-02 Thread Ken Williams
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:01 AM, David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As some have noted, CPAN.pm supports configure_requires and CPANPLUS will soon, so to me it seems like the a better problem to address is how to get an end-user to upgrade those. Not everyone likes to use CPAN{PLUS} to

Re: Other suggestions for modules that need an updated toolchain? (was latest.pm, Module::Build, etc.)

2008-10-02 Thread David Golden
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Ken Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's not necessary when using latest.pm either. Unless latest.pm is buggy. Or unless a new Module::Build fixes some bug or changes some internal function that some distribution happened to depend upon. (Leaving aside the

Re: Other suggestions for modules that need an updated toolchain? (was latest.pm, Module::Build, etc.)

2008-10-02 Thread Ken Williams
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:23 AM, David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Note -- I'm not saying *don't* do latest.pm and M::B bundling, as some authors may prefer that -- I'm all in favor of M::B being everything that people want and moving away from make as a Perl build tool. Absolutely - this