# from Hans Dieter Pearcey
# on Wednesday 08 April 2009 09:20:
>In particular, saying "maybe" for Module::Build seems pretty
> reasonable to me, since M::B vs. M::I is the emacs vs. vi of
> distribution installers, and the summary "there is controversy, but
> it's definitely better than EUMM" is certainly true.
As I've said before, this is silly. It's a tool, so either it works or
it doesn't. We can't really have "controversy" about whether it works
or how it works.
I can understand if one prefers the syntax of Module::Install and has no
qualms about the questionable workarounds on top of EU::MM or has
chosen the predictability of bundling in light of the risks of
staleness. But at this point, it is very possible to build all of that
on top of Module::Build without all of the subtle and lingering
gotchas.
It's a long, long ways from "emacs vs vi". Feel free to make "rpm vs
deb" analogies (with actual pros/cons.) But, when sending someone a
file, "edited in emacs or vi" doesn't matter.
If there has been any controversy, it's been about the fact that M::B
was the first tool to break from "how we used to do it". This exposed
some flawed assumptions in the rest of the ecosystem which were not of
M::B's making. I hope we're past that (and I'm looking forward to the
seamless addition of multiple alternative builders - perhaps even a
less eye-bleedy way to do Inline:: modules.)
Analysis of real problems with M::B are welcomed in the bug tracker (or
as code.) This will help much more than snide "if only it worked"
comments scattered around the interwebs and avoid making new users
thing there's something wrong with M::B on account of it "not working
in 1999".
Thanks,
Eric
--
I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a
desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day.
--E.B. White
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
