On 2/16/06, Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Let me reconsider my reasoning here from scratch. The original point > that Adam & Yves were making, IIUIC, was that distributions should > include a Makefile.PL. If they don't have one at all, then of course > we don't need to worry about clobbering one! So I'd be fine with > changing the default in this case to provide some flavor of Makefile.PL > generated in the dist directory.
Yes that was my point. > The main question would be what style to make it. 'traditional' is > accessible by more people, but will often be broken (if, e.g., there > are config questions or auto-sensing in the Build.PL they'll be lost to > the Makefile.PL), so I'd be inclined to choose 'small' or 'passthrough' > for this case. > > That should make most people happy, no? In general yes. But I think its worth considering that traditional is preferable. This http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=458282 argues that the traditional provides more flexibility for the end user. Cheers, yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
