On Tue, 5 May 2009 19:09:30 -0700 Bill Ward <b...@wards.net> wrote: > The way I've interpreted that in my own auto-build scripting is that if > Build.PL exists, the module author is probably a Module::Build user who is > only providing a Makefile.PL grudgingly for the sake of those who haven't > installed Module::Build, and thus I figure that if there's any difference > between the two .PL files, probably Build.PL is the one the author is more > invested in.
That's the logic I work to, yes. All my Makefile.PLs are built from the original Build.PLs. > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Jonathan Yu <jonathan.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The real question at hand here is: for modules that provide both a > > Makefile.PL and Build.PL, which should be preferred? More than that, > > from the perspective of CPAN authors, is it even useful to provide > > both? Now that Module::Build is a core module, maybe only a Build.PL > > should be included. But only core in 5.10. I've decided semi-officially that I "don't care" about 5.6 any more, in that I'll happily use Scalar::Util::weaken(), or other 5.8-and-above things, unless someone can demonstrate me a simple workaround for them that would work on 5.6. I don't yet apply the same for 5.10, as 5.8 is still the default in lots of places. Perhaps in a year or two I might rethink that, but for now I have to keep 5.8 in mind. -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans leon...@leonerd.org.uk ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
