Re: Wrapper for backwards compatibility
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 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
>
Re: Wrapper for backwards compatibility
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
pgpgVheDljjaw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Wrapper for backwards compatibility
On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 9:00 PM Pete Houston wrote: > Hello, > > I am considering writing and releasing a module to implement a > backwards-compatible filter just like the idea proposed by schwern at > https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=60348 > > The dilemma is what to call it. My initial thought was something > like ExtUtils::MakeMaker::BackCompat which, if somewhat on the verbose > side, is at least descriptive. > > My question really is do you think that such a wrapper module should > live under the ExtUtils::MakeMaker namespace without being bundled with > it? Is that: > > a) a great idea > b) a terrible idea > c) meh ... > > I welcome other suggestions of course and will pop this on PrePAN as > well. > > Thanks for reading, > > Pete Houston It sounds like a terrible idea. Most of all I'm not sure what problem that would solve. Writing Makefile.PL by hand is painful, that's why most people (who aren't experts) use tools like Dist::Zilla nowadays. Leon
Wrapper for backwards compatibility
Hello, I am considering writing and releasing a module to implement a backwards-compatible filter just like the idea proposed by schwern at https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=60348 The dilemma is what to call it. My initial thought was something like ExtUtils::MakeMaker::BackCompat which, if somewhat on the verbose side, is at least descriptive. My question really is do you think that such a wrapper module should live under the ExtUtils::MakeMaker namespace without being bundled with it? Is that: a) a great idea b) a terrible idea c) meh ... I welcome other suggestions of course and will pop this on PrePAN as well. Thanks for reading, Pete Houston -- Openstrike - improving business through open source https://www.openstrike.co.uk/ or call 01722 770036 pgp9HF2S1P_Hz.pgp Description: PGP signature
