On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 09:10:26AM +1100, Stas Bekman wrote: > Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote: > >On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Stas Bekman wrote: > > > > > >>Something to consider for mod_perl 2.0. Even though it'll create a > >>dependency > >>on Module::Build. Any takers? > > > > > >er, "Using an external utility (ie. make) is the fundamental > >flaw."[1]. > > > >httpd requires make. I don't see much point in adding a requirement > >when we can't remove the requirement of make anyway. > > >[1] http://xrl.us/cfy > > Not really. Unlike, the first generation, mod_perl 2.0 builds separately > from httpd and therefore doesn't have to rely on the same process.
[I'm going to get shot. Why am I doing this? Probably because I hate debugging custom build systems.] To be honest, I don't see the point. Eliminating dependencies on MakeMaker, yes - eliminating dependencies on Make, no. GNU make's list of supported platforms is I believe even larger than Perl's, so that's not much of an excuse. I'd bet that a good template makefile, generated at Perl installation time, and a really simple script to combine the project's makefile with the template (so as not to rely on "include" working) could do everything people really want their module build tool to do without becoming incomprehensible. Writing portable makefiles is really not all that hard. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
