I do *not* think this idea is terrible, and I agree that it's better to
pull this stuff out into a more central location. However, to your primary
question, as a user I think I'd find it a bit confusing if the module's
name started with `ExtUtils::MakeMaker`, which is a well-known package, but
didn't actually live within that package, making it a bit harder to
figure out what to install in order to use it. So I'd vote for naming it
something with a different prefix.
-Ken
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 5:57 PM Pete Houston <p...@openstrike.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:22:12PM +0100, Leon Timmermans wrote:
> > It sounds like a terrible idea. Most of all I'm not sure what problem
> > that would solve.
>
> The problem is the boilerplate sitting in every Makefile.PL to ensure it
> is backwards-compatible with older EUMM versions. Not a huge problem I
> grant you but certainly a bunch of repeated code like this which ideally
> would be abstracted away into a single location.
>
> delete $MF{MIN_PERL_VERSION} if $ExtUtils::MakeMaker::VERSION <
> 6.48;
> delete $MF{META_MERGE} if $ExtUtils::MakeMaker::VERSION <
> 6.46;
> delete $MF{LICENSE} if $ExtUtils::MakeMaker::VERSION <
> 6.31;
>
> etc.
>
> > Writing Makefile.PL by hand is painful, that's why most people (who
> > aren't experts) use tools like Dist::Zilla nowadays.
>
> YMMV. I find writing Makefile.PL by hand to be much less painful than
> using Dist::Zilla.
>
> Pete
> --
> Openstrike - improving business through open source
> https://www.openstrike.co.uk/ or call 01722 770036
>
