On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Miles Gould <mi...@assyrian.org.uk> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 07:07:38PM -0800, John R. Hogerhuis wrote: >> At the end of the day I think the right place to do this fix is, some >> way, in Makefile.PL. Maybe using perl to munge a template.pm with >> different use Inline stuff. > > At the risk of asking a more-than-usually stupid question, are we not > all meant to be using Build.PL these days? Or is that incompatible with > Inline?
At the risk of heresy, at this point, I think the concept beyond Module::Build is flawed. The idea is to excise dependency on make, but, incomprehensibly to me, without replacing it with something approaching make's basic capabilities. If Builder was based on Cons or something then I could buy into it. As it is, it's a trade-down. That said, I think it's fine for modules that don't need to build C code. I don't know if there is any problem with Inline. Maybe someone can convince me. All I know for sure is that it is OT for this list. -- John.
