Bill Ward wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Hans Dieter Pearcey
<hdp.perl.module-auth...@weftsoar.net
<mailto:hdp.perl.module-auth...@weftsoar.net>> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 10:55:44PM +0300, Burak Gürsoy wrote:
> I think M::B has a clean and understandable interface while
EU::MM is
> archaic (yes I know I didn't say something new).
Any current argument about Perl installation tools is, as far as I
can tell,
primarily a battle between Module::Build and Module::Install, with
EUMM on a
stretcher by the sidelines. Pitting M::B against EUMM makes your
argument
neither fair nor compelling.
For the average simple module that's just a pm file or two, EUMM is
the least painful solution. It comes with every version of Perl that
a user might possibly have, and it works the same in each of those
Perl versions. It may be clunky and lack many desirable fetures, but
it works just fine in most cases.
Erm... not in my experience. For a simple pure-perl package, M::B
turned out to be simpler to use when setting up a new package. Since I
don't use either CPAN or CPANPLUS, those details were a non-issue, and I
let M::B create the Makefile.PL also. Much less hassle. It's why my
new package was made with M::B, and why I transfered my other packages
to M::B.
Note that I am at the lowest level of perl programmer here: pure perl,
minimal use of dependencies, straightforward documentation.
-john
