Re: [Fink-devel] I'm changing your perlmodule package, and we need a way to avoid it

2010-08-11 Thread Max Horn
[...] >>> >>> 2. DefaultScript: that takes values of "autotools" "makemaker" >>> "module::build"? Bonus: extensible to any other new build systems we >>> feel like supporting, and lets packages get the type:perl magic even >>> if they use autotools (or vice versa). This sounds like the most fut

Re: [Fink-devel] I'm changing your perlmodule package, and we need a way to avoid it

2010-08-09 Thread Daniel Johnson
On Aug 9, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Alexander Hansen wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 8/9/10 6:01 AM, Daniel E. Macks wrote: >> Many dozens of perl5.10.0 variants of perlmodule packages don't build >> on 10.6/i386 (i.e., the 32-bit side of the "universal" system-perl) >> b

Re: [Fink-devel] I'm changing your perlmodule package, and we need a way to avoid it

2010-08-09 Thread Alexander Hansen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/9/10 6:01 AM, Daniel E. Macks wrote: > Many dozens of perl5.10.0 variants of perlmodule packages don't build > on 10.6/i386 (i.e., the 32-bit side of the "universal" system-perl) > because they all clone the same CompileScript for Build.PL that do

[Fink-devel] I'm changing your perlmodule package, and we need a way to avoid it

2010-08-09 Thread Daniel E. Macks
Many dozens of perl5.10.0 variants of perlmodule packages don't build on 10.6/i386 (i.e., the 32-bit side of the "universal" system-perl) because they all clone the same CompileScript for Build.PL that does not pass the single-arch tricks. I'm fixing them because they're broken. I have contacted ma