Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>The easy thing would be to remove the Build.PL from ExtUtils::ParseXS,
>ExtUtils::CBuilder, etc
Euggh. The Build.PL protocol is superior to the Makefile.PL protocol;
we should be able to (eventually) not require make(1) at all in the
toolchain.
Is this just a circular depen
# from David Golden
# on Tuesday 23 February 2010 17:17:
>> The easy thing would be to remove the Build.PL from
>> ExtUtils::ParseXS, ExtUtils::CBuilder, etc (but only because we have
>> comaint on those.)
>
>We know who the maintainers are and can encourage them. Test::Harness
>is already done.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> We've run into a Build.PL vs Makefile.PL problem with cpanminus. The
> situation is that if M::B requires anything with a Build.PL file, that
> it becomes impossible to bootstrap.
We should remove Build.PL from anything that M::B requires.
Hi all,
We've run into a Build.PL vs Makefile.PL problem with cpanminus. The
situation is that if M::B requires anything with a Build.PL file, that
it becomes impossible to bootstrap.
The easy thing would be to remove the Build.PL from ExtUtils::ParseXS,
ExtUtils::CBuilder, etc (but only beca
