On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 07:00 AM, Orton, Yves wrote:
Frankly until Module::Build works seamlessly by default with plain old
CPAN
I would advance the opinion that it will never replace MakeMaker, and
potentially in the long run leave the community divided, with those of
us
who can usin
Hi Yves,
I just became aware of this thread after returning from a long
honeymoon.
On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 05:43 AM, Orton, Yves wrote:
Personally my feeling is that Module::Build isn't mature enough for
release ready code.
Yeah, but that threshold is different for different people
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 04:34:42PM -, Orton, Yves wrote:
> Lets consider the situation as we have it from the POV of a CPAN.pm user
> without your patches (like me and the vast majority of production perl
> instances out there).
>
> 1. CPAN downloads the dist unpacks it and either
> A. Finds
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 01:00:07PM -, Orton, Yves wrote:
> If you cant install modules then the fact that Module::Build and CPANPLUS
> exist isnt going to help you much.
*head scratch* if they can't install modules then it really doesn't matter
how modules are installed since they can't inst
* Orton, Yves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-20 12:46]:
> Personally my feeling is that Module::Build isn't mature enough
> for release ready code.
That is circular logic, I'm afraid. The less it's used, the
longer it'll take to mature. Unless you are running up against
one of its specific known wea
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:13:37AM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > Well, I find it odd that it works the way it does. CPAN expects a
> > Makefile.PL. If an author doesnt bother to have makefile.pl created (my
> > understanding is that this is not default, I await correction) then the
> > module is no
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Orton, Yves wrote:
> Thats great. Did it get applied? Even if it did it still wont help those
> that cannot upgrade their CPAN or install modules will it?
If you can't install a new version of CPAN.pm, how can you install other
modules? You're either maintaining your own per
Title: RE: ExtUtils::MakeMaker or Module::Build
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Orton, Yves wrote:
>
> > Well, I find it odd that it works the way it does. CPAN expects a
> > Makefile.PL. If an author doesnt bother to have makefile.pl created (my
> > understanding is that this
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Orton, Yves wrote:
> Well, I find it odd that it works the way it does. CPAN expects a
> Makefile.PL. If an author doesnt bother to have makefile.pl created (my
> understanding is that this is not default, I await correction) then the
> module is not auto installable by a larg
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:34:38PM -0500, Lincoln A. Baxter wrote:
>
> But as we start to put this together we run across Module::Build. In
> the past I have always used ExtUtils::MakaMaker. Is there a preference
> (if one were starting from scratch), to using one over the other?
I maintain Dat
Title: RE: ExtUtils::MakeMaker or Module::Build
> > I dont know the logic behind using Build.pl instead of
> makefile.pl, but the
> > fact that it doesnt create the later by defualt (or so I
> have been told) is
> > in my eyes a serious mistake that will greatly redu
Orton, Yves wrote:
But as we start to put this together we run across
Module::Build. In
the past I have always used ExtUtils::MakaMaker. Is there
a preference
(if one were starting from scratch), to using one over the other?
Personally my feeling is that Module::Build isn't mature enough fo
Title: RE: ExtUtils::MakeMaker or Module::Build
> > But as we start to put this together we run across
> Module::Build. In
> > the past I have always used ExtUtils::MakaMaker. Is there
> a preference
> > (if one were starting from scratch), to using one over th
On 11/19/2003 11:34 PM, Lincoln A. Baxter wrote:
Hi,
I and several others are starting to put together a collection of
modules. The will be an architecture for implementing a
data/application integration server. More on that later when we have a
more complete description we can post.
But as we
14 matches
Mail list logo
