Re: MakeMaker Is DOOMED!
On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 04:14 AM, Tim Bunce wrote: Actually the name originates from the 'ext' subdirectory of the perl distribution. But you're right that it's very much a legacy. Oh, I didn't know that, it makes a lot more sense than external utils, which is what I thought it meant too. Of course, this means that the namespace is even worse than I thought for being used as general-purpose module-handling schtuff. =) -Ken
Re: [Module-build-general] MakeMaker Is DOOMED!
On Sunday, February 16, 2003, at 01:35 PM, Brian Ingerson wrote: I went to the talk. It got me to thinking about CPAN::MakeMaker and its relationship to Module::Build. Given: The goal of CP::MM is to allow authors to write very simple/clean Makefile.PLs that can potentially turn on very powerful features like bundling with the flick of a switch. The Makefile.PL produces a Makefile. Then: There is no reason why CP::MM can't produce a Makefile that wraps Module::Build! I'm not sure that's ideal, because it still requires 'make' to orchestrate at least some of the process. One of the hairiest parts of Module::Build is the tiny little pass-through Makefile in Module::Build::Compat, because it has to work in all kinds of different environments. I've just made a bunch of changes that let it work on Windows, but there are still a bunch of things missing, like translating MM command-line options to M::B options If the author has a version of Module::Build on there system that is sufficient to handle the options that the author has requested of CPAN::MakeMaker, then CP::MM will (optionally??) bundle M::B into the author's dist. After that nobody is the wiser. Everything just works. I wouldn't want lots of installation tools bundled into all my distributions, though. I still think it's far better to have a powerful system for listing dependencies in as fine-grained and accessible a manner as is necessary, and let the user choose their favorite policies and tools for fulfilling those dependencies. -Ken
Re: [Module-build-general] MakeMaker Is DOOMED!
On 15/02/03 21:43 -0600, Ken Williams wrote: On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 03:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tonite at Portland.pm I gave a lightning talk entitled MakeMaker Is DOOMED! or MakeMaker Is Dead! Long Live Module::Build!. Excellent. =) I should bring a Grim Reaper mask to YAPC/TPC this year. I went to the talk. It got me to thinking about CPAN::MakeMaker and its relationship to Module::Build. Given: The goal of CP::MM is to allow authors to write very simple/clean Makefile.PLs that can potentially turn on very powerful features like bundling with the flick of a switch. The Makefile.PL produces a Makefile. Then: There is no reason why CP::MM can't produce a Makefile that wraps Module::Build! If the author has a version of Module::Build on there system that is sufficient to handle the options that the author has requested of CPAN::MakeMaker, then CP::MM will (optionally??) bundle M::B into the author's dist. After that nobody is the wiser. Everything just works. Except that if the USER is installing on a makeless system, CP::MM will prompt them to use Build instead. Conclusions: CP::MM becomes a migration tool for moving over to Module::Build. The users always have the correct version of M::B, because it is bundled in. (Just like CP::MM itself) CP::MM focuses on refactoring fancy functionality into simple switches. M::B focuses on replacing MakeMaker. Yay! Thoughts? Cheers, Brian
Re: MakeMaker Is DOOMED!
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 01:39:05PM -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 08:49:40AM -0800, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
schwern == schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
schwern Executive summary:
schwern The architecture of MakeMaker is fundamentally flawed by having to use
schwern an external build tool. Further feature development is discouraged.
schwern Use Module::Build instead.
So, when will we get the equivalent of h2xs -ANx Module::Name for
Module::Build? Can't sign off on replacement of MakeMaker until
this is in the core.
When someone that really wants it writes it.
Well, he better soon. This is not a trivial shortcoming considering the
complexity of XS modules and all the dirty work that h2xs does.
Definitely not something that you'd want to hand-roll.
Tassilo
--
$_=q#,}])!JAPH!qq(tsuJ[{@tnirp}3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$-3(rellac(=_$({
pam{rekcahbus})(rekcah{lrePbus})(lreP{rehtonabus})!JAPH!qq(rehtona{tsuJbus#;
$_=reverse,s+(?=sub).+q#q!'qq.\t$.'!#+sexisexiixesixeseg;y~\n~~;eval
Re: [Module-build-general] MakeMaker Is DOOMED!
On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 03:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tonite at Portland.pm I gave a lightning talk entitled MakeMaker Is DOOMED! or MakeMaker Is Dead! Long Live Module::Build!. Excellent. =) I should bring a Grim Reaper mask to YAPC/TPC this year. -Ken
