> > Are you in doubt only for ./ext/Encode/CN/Makefile.PL or > you're in doubt for > > a whole family of those changes? We can temporarily exclude > building of > > The whole family of those changes. > > I'm having doubts because having to modify several Makefile.PL's of an > extension that is completely unrelated to cross-compilation doesn't > feel right. Such need for modifications doesn't bode well for future: > how many other extensions will we have to moodify because of > cross-compilation?
Just because I tried those recently, I can tell you it is the only place in perl distribution. May be sometimes undependent extensions will not build with -MCross option, but mostly they should. (currently -MCross for MakeMaker works only for CORE=1, but this is not very hard to implement it further) > It feels like the logic should be somewhere > higher up (e.g. MakeMaker?). I see your point. But in this case the script Makefile.PL itself has logic which tries to construct command line without thinking of some alien possibilities, in our case it does not worries about -MCross. And in more common and general cases, like for other extensions, -MCross already works okay. If you'll invent a function ExtUtils::MM_Unix::special_arguments() that will emit needed additional options for unusual cases, who will guarantee that next time module author will use it at proper time? Anyway, I thought about those changes as harmless, but if it is not the case, let's skip them! (It is pitty that Encode:: will not be that easily available for WinCE then, but I think there are many things to do outside that problem anyway) Best wishes, Vadim.
