On 7/21/07, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you suggeting that ExtUtils::MakeMaker go into Bundle::CPAN? That's a very good idea.
It's not?!? I always assumed it was since M::B was there. (In fact I just checked and it's there now, but that sneaky Andreas just released a new Bundle::CPAN today!)
This is not to say I don't agree with you about require being a convention, but they're all special cases, hacks and conventions. Until META.yml has a proper way to explicitly declare non-module dependencies its pretty much all convention.
I'm in violent agreement with you. I was only crying out against the evils of layering hacks on top of hacks.
The nice part about the "require" failure is it always works, at least in the "stops the build" part. And everything knows how to parse the error already.
I agree here. At this point, I would suggest the following: * M::B::Compat be patched to add 'requires 5.XXXXXX' when it sees a 'perl' prerequisite (which I've written and will post shortly) * EU::MM, M::B and the META.yml spec explicitly add a 'minimum_perl' (or equivalent) key so that there is a clear, consistent, documented way to specify it. * All tools be patched to be liberal in accepting 'perl' in requires or PREREQ_PM, but conservative in emitting only the new 'minimum_perl' key (e.g. repatch M::B::Compat to add the 'MINIMUM_PERL' or equivalent keyword to generated Makefile.PL) David
