On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 12:06 AM, Brian Ingerson wrote:
On 17/02/03 14:09 -0600, Ken Williams wrote:I agree with all this. I am definitely in favor of M::B over EU::MM. And
Then there are the cases where in order to get something installed
correctly, I just can't manage to do the job properly using EU::MM, so
I have to turn to M::B.
For many of my modules, I've been distributing with both a Makefile.PL
and a Build.PL, and before too long I'll probably turn the Makefile.PLs
into pass-throughs when it gets too hectic for me to manage both of
them. But I won't do that for crucial modules until M::B is more
well-known and more widely distributed and tested.
in a perfect world, every Perl module would use a perfect version of
M::B that was installed on every installation of Perl. But we ain't
there yet. The technical and social bootstrapping is going to be a long
and winding road with many cats to shepard. I'm looking for ways to
abstract over both systems to smooth the transition.
Sounds like exactly the way I feel too.
Yeah, but you have to remember, it's Software. It's always going to have problems. We'll never actually get to Wally World. ;-)And what of the people who have been sending me bug reports that say
that M::B doesn't work right on Win32, even though I tested it fine on
my iBook? Maybe at some future date we'll be able to make modules that
a) have no unspotted bugs, and b) have no cross-platform issues, but I
don't think we're there yet.
Right. This is assuming a more mature M::B of course. But we're getting there relatively fast no?
-Ken
