Re^5: On packaging modules (time to fix the big Module::Build issues)

    MAKEMAKER HAS TO DIE!

Just because you say so doesn't make it necessarily so.
[download]

Actually it kinda does. <evil grin>

But regardless, of course the bugs have to be fixed, what do you think we have been doing? Part of what's held MB back is a lack of users and a lack of modules using it. And directly, not through a Makefile.PL compat layer. Now that CPANPLUS has Module::Build support its getting a lot more use and the bugs are getting shaken out. Of course, everybody sees this process and starts yelling in despair.

DON'T PANIC! There's lots of time before 5.10. Just keep hammering on MB and keep fixing the bugs. And for god's sake, keep USING IT! If nobody uses it the bugs won't get found and fixed.

MakeMaker mostly works on Win32, and works lots better than Module::Bu
+ild
[download]

Except for that whole "don't have make" thing. And the "this module extended the Makefile using non-portable make code" thing. And lemme tell ya, its a royal pain in the ass to write make portably, especially for nmake. Yuck.

And I'm tearing out more redundant code which means I'm probably about to break stuff.

I can set up a special automated Win32 smoketest mailaccount for you, 
+but I won't join the MakeMaker mailing lists, as MakeMaker mostly wor
+ks on Win32
[download]

That smoketest mail account would be useful, thank you. And yes, don't waste too much time on MakeMaker. Spend it on MB.

20041216 Janitored by Corion: Changed PRE to CODE tags to allow wrapping

Comment on Re^5: On packaging modules (time to fix the big Module::Build issues) Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: On packaging modules (time to fix the big Module::Build issues)
by Corion (Patriarch) on Dec 16, 2004 at 12:43 UTC

Just keep hammering on MB and keep fixing the bugs. And for god's sake, keep USING IT! If nobody uses ot the bugs won't get found and fixed

Which brings us back to my starting point - I'm not interested in developing a module-building module myself. M::B and EU::MM to me are two vehicles of delivering my product to my potential users. One of the two works, and the other doesn't. So common sense dicates that I use the working vehicle instead of the broken one.

I'm in the process of digging through EU::MM myself, because I want to create an integrated Crypt::SSLeay distribution that uses the information from the current Perl instead of relying on the handmade Makefiles derived from EU::MM output, so I understand your pain, but I also wonder why schwern hasn't turned the MM::* stuff into mixin-based modules, one mixin for the make flavour, and one mixin for the OS flavour.

I will /msg schwern the details and try to set up a wholly automated process that reduces the necessary manual steps to a minimum I hope.

[reply]


"be consistent"
	PerlMonks