Damn - my replies have not been going to the list...
On Sun, 2009-03-22 at 10:00 +1100, Ron Savage wrote:
> Hi Eric
>
> On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 10:44 -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> > # from Ron Savage
> > # on Saturday 21 March 2009 02:16:
> >
> > >For those of us who wish to indicate to a program that our distro is a
> > >pure Perl module, I'm thinking that a pure_perl tag in META.yml is the
> > >way to go.
> >
> > Perhaps. The catch is when you have something like 'version', which can
> > either be pure perl or compiled, depending on what's available.
>
> See below.
>
> > In such a case, the build_recommends field would be nice to have.
>
> Possible, but could open a can of worms.
>
> > I'm sort of thinking that the presence of ExtUtils::CBuilder in
> > build_requires would be a sufficient indicator. (Except there's also
> > Inline::C, swig, and such.)
> >
> > And note: you can only state that *your* distribution is pure_perl, but
> > it might depend on a compiled module.
>
> Sure.
>
> But if that other module is pre-installed, I needn't worry, and if it's
> not, then /it's/ META.yml would hopefully say something.
>
> > But if we do something with a toplevel tag, "pure_perl" is maybe not the
> > name for it because what you really mean is "needs_compiler", right?
>
> You're getting warmer. How about:
>
> compiler: mandatory, optional, not_needed?
>
> And, yes, I understand that if M::B wants to be all things to all
> people, we're just talking about the relevance of this new key to Perl
> modules.
>
--
Ron Savage
[email protected]
http://savage.net.au/index.html
