(Adam raises doubts if his mails come through to the list. Because I think they don't, I cite him in full length)
>>>>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:22:10 +1000, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > (Andreas J. Koenig) wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:05:56 +1000, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>> said: >> >> > I'm of the opinion tha as soon as we say... >> >> > use Module::Build; >> >> > ... then we've already lost. We're mixing the two different functions >> > together in the same process. >> >> It's a noble goal to think in purist terms but it's also a matter of >> available alternatives. As soon as we had a well respected and widely >> adopted META.yml we had to recognize that it isn't autoritative. But >> you cannot have both worlds: either there is an authoritative source >> that tells me prerequisites or I have to ask the tool that the >> developers use to build their package. > Oh but you can have both worlds :) > We have currently META.yml, which is only advisory but suitably > describes all the metadata that a CPAN might like to know in a way > that's easy to get at. > Then we run the installer/configure script (Makefile|Build).PL which > will then determine similar metadata for the specific system and > circumstances. > You can see this as "localizing" the metadata (i.e. the information in > META.yml). > Now, in the case of ExtUtils::MakeMaker, you don't go into that > process, you just read the localized metadata from a file it writes > out. In that case if I'm remembering correclty, it's the actual > Makefile where it writes out a section you can read. You're right, that was a surprisingly well working hack. Makefile.PL wrote a *comment* into the Makefile that could be parsed out again. > It seems fairly logical to me that this process "run installer, read > deps" should work pretty well, because it isolates your CPAN client > code from the installer code, which theoretically could be hacked up > all to hell with customisations. Agreed. > One thing I had blindly assumed at one point, because I thought it was > so obvious, that one ExtUtils::MakeMaker and Module::Build are both > capable of generating META.yml files, that when you run the > installers, they would just overwrite the uploaded META.yml with a > replacement "localized" for the current plaform. > So instead of reading META.yml before the installer/configure to > determine the deps, you just read if AFTER the installer/configure > run, and you get the dependcies that are specific to the current > platform, and recurse on that basis. > That avoids the messyness of loading Module::Build into memory, and > would serve as an interesting replacement for reading our of the > Makefile (if you added support to ExtUtils::MakeMaker). No objections. Provided that that META.yml is good enough. So this will need another round of development. > Now, I can certainly see where you might potentially get into some > trouble with different authors on different platforms overwriting each > others META.yml in a repository. > But having the installer "localize" the META.yml would seem to me to > be a valid option. Good. > Of course, if for various authoring or back-compatibility reasons you > don't want to overwrite the existing META.yml, perhaps then you add a > feature where after running the installer, you look for a > seperately-named local file, say for the sake of example, META.local > or LOCAL.yml or LOCALMETA.yml or what have you. > Then you just > 1. Read META.yml, look for dynamic_config: 0. If so recurse to deps > 2. Run Makefile.PL or Build.PL > 3. Look for META.local. If so recurse to deps > 4. Otherwise, use Makefile scanning or whatever you do now > Thoughts? I like it. Curious if Ken will like it as well. Maybe there is already a way to play it without changes to Module::Build? > Adam K > P.S. Are my emails actually making it to the mailing lists and my > client is just not showing them, or have I been banned or blocked from > the mailing lists some how... I did not see your response to Dave Rolsky either, so I assume you're blocked. > Or more simply, can anyone see this on the lists? -- andreas
