If I had read http://search.cpan.org/~dconway/Module-Starter-PBP-v0.0.3/lib/Module/Starter/PBP.pm, I'd have seen the advice to type

With the result that a directory of templates is created. I am free to tailor the templates, including setting up exactly the Licence and Copyright that I want.

When I configure t/perlcritic.t to enforce brutal severity, and run build test, I am told that 2 POD sections (SUBROUTINES/METHODS, and LICENSE AND COPYRIGHT) are still missing. So, almost but not quite perlcritic safe.

The former section may now be INTERFACE, and the latter is (Aussie/British-English spelling) LICENCE AND COPYRIGHT. Good -- but now I have to dig just a little deeper to discover how to tailor Test::Perl::Critic to permit these alternative section names.

I'd welcome guidance on the right path.

   license         => 'perl',
   create_license  => 1,
[download]

From my original post:

Module::Starter::Simple.pm has a subroutine _get_licenses_mapping that lets the module developer select from perl, mit, bsd, add other license text. How can I plugin my own license and copyright text (tailored to my employers standard commercial wording)? /

From that, I think it's clear that I can already select "perl", for example, and standard text is plugged in. But that standard text is not tailored to my employers standard commercial wording.

It looks like Module::Starter produces a template that falls far short of perlcritic standards, but a Build program that works despite pathnames embedding spaces. In contrast, Module::Starter::PBP produces a template that almost meets perlcritic standards, but a Build program that fails if pathnames embed spaces.

The clumsy compromise seems to be to use Module::Starter::PBP once only to generate a template, then fix that template's few bugs and keep it, then always use Module::Starter to generate new frameworks and Build programs, but overwrite its template with the saved perlcritic compliant one (as a Vim plugin, say).

Wouldn't it be nice if the few critical rough corners on Module::Starter::PBP were smoothed off . . .

Or can any Monk recommend a better way towards a really classy, standardised, consistently-tailored module-production mechanism?

falls far short of perlcritic standards

Are you listening to yourself? I mean, really listening to yourself!

Perl::Critic is the embodiment of: the Perl-shy in a Perl world; the belt-&-braces man in a just-what's-needed-world; a functional-zealot in a side-effects-are-inevitable world; an OO-zealot in a procedural-can-be-efficient-and-correct world.

Perl::Critic is: Caution in Extremis, to point of paralysis; Careful to the point of paranoia; Deferential to the point of Indecisive; Follow my leader (even over the cliff).

Perl::Critic is the Sum of all Fears!

Imagine trying to live your life avoiding all the 51 million 200 thousand things that someone, somewhere believes are bad for you. Well that's what trying to follow Perl::Critic (with it's default settings) gives you.

Every single prejudice, dogma, and misunderstanding that any ex-COBOL, C++, VBasic or Haskell programmer ever had on their first excursion in Perl; applied rote--like a 5 year old reciting their times tables--without any application of knowledge, understanding or judgement.

Man up! Learn enough about the language you are programming in to make your own decisions. Make your own decisions and live with their consequences and learn from them; Don't let the machine tell you what to do!

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"I'd rather go naked than blow up my ass"

1) create your own subclass to your standards 2) try Module::New