On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Seth Daniel <perl-module-bu...@sethdaniel.org> wrote: > I've been using Module::Build for several years. Typically subclassing > it to help build a module. I read with interest David Golden's blog post > about Dist::Zilla: > http://www.dagolden.com/index.php/752/why-im-using-distzilla/ > > It sounds as if Dist::Zilla can be used as a replacement for > Module::Build. In other words it can help build a single module. Since > David is the maintainer of Module::Build and is obviously a fan of > Dist::Zilla I was wondering on whether he would comment on the > practicality of migrating from subclassing Module::Build to using > Dist::Zilla.
It's a replacement in the narrow sense of *packaging* a distribution. It doesn't replace Module;:Build (or ExtUtils;:MakeMaker) as an install tool. You still need a Build.PL or Makefile.PL in your distribution. However, if your Build.PL is pretty generic, Dist::Zilla can generated a Build.PL for you. If your M::B subclass is used for packaging, then Dist::Zilla may be able to replace that functionality in a more extensible way. If your subclass is used to customize the build or install process, then you'll still need that. (I believe that there was some recent work on Dist::Zilla to allow you put your subclass into inc/ and tell Dist::Zilla to use your subclass instead of Module::Build in the generated Build.PL) > In particular is it worthwhile for people who rarely need > to interact with CPAN? The code I write is almost entirely internal to > the comapny where I work. All of our modules are packaged and we don't > currently publish anything to CPAN. We find Module::Build adequate for > both development installation and in our build system for running tests > and creating packages (i.e. RPMs or debs). I would say that if it works for you, you probably don't need to change. Or, you may wish to use a subset of Dist::Zilla's features. For example, does your company mandate that all files have a copyright statement on them? If so, and if you don't want to keep them up to date, you could use Dist::Zilla for that. > On a somewhat related note is there anything out there that can help > with the building of multiple modules? Is Dist::Zilla good for this > too? As currently designed, I don't think it is. You might want to talk to some people who package Perl modules for Debian or FreeBSD as I think they have tools for doing some work in batch. Some of them hang out in #toolchain on irc.perl.org. > I am particulary interested in anything that can take a list of > module directories (e.g. Foo-A/, Foo-B/, Foo-B-Z/), run the tests, and, > assuming everything is okay, come back with RPMs of said modules. It > would need to do this in the proper order (preferrably automatically > discovering dependencies). It seems I always have to build something to > do this wherever I go and it gets tiresome. You might want to look at PAR or FatPacker, but neither of those are quite what you describe. -- David
