Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Well it would only clobber the file if it contained the
> >>>"auto-generated" line, so I think that's safe, but if you want to be
> >>>*really* paranoid, how about having the dist actions fail if you
> >>>havent
> >>>specified a "create_makfile_pl" arg? (one of the exsitng ones or
> >>>"skip").
> >>I just tested and CVS HEAD M::B happily overwrote a hand-made
> >>Makefile.PL when I added 'traditional' to Build.PL and ran "Build
> >>distdir". Luckily, I had it in SVN so it was an easy restore.
> >
> > But that's exactly what you asked it to do. ;-)
> >
> > Seriously though, it sounds like having at least a loud warning "I
> >did not write this Makefile.PL, move it out of the way first" is
> >worthwhile.
> >
> > - Tyler
>
> I understand that. I was simply saying that your assertion that it
> wouldn't clobber a file that lacked the "auto-generated" line was not
> the current reality. It was unclear to me from that message whether
> you were discussing actual behavior or ideal behavior, so I tested it
> myself. Sorry, I should have put a smiley after my SVN comment. :-D
Heh. This is all proposed behaviour. Everybody seems to agree the
current behaviour isn't ideal, so before I write a patch (looks like John
Peacock might have beat me too it anyway) I just wanted to be clear on the
solution. Bitching about an existing Makefile.PL seems to be the lowest
common denominator among all the ideas that have gone back and forth, so
that should definately be implemented first. What's still in the air;
- Whether or not we check for the "auto-generated by MB::Compat"
line
- Whether or not we add an explicit 'skip' argument to
create_makefile_pl, which follows through to;
- Whether or not we complain and/or fail to function if the module
developer has not specified "create_makefile_pl" at all.
Cheers,
Tyler
