Hi Adam
Adam has kindly offered to examine my Strawberry installation, so I've
FTPed it to him.
Here, I've moved the Strawberry dir aside and installed it from scratch.
The default install has Module::Build 0.2805 and no Module::Install.
> Start with YAML::Tiny, that should have the absolute la
# from Adam Kennedy
# on Wednesday 23 May 2007 06:40 pm:
>> 2. configure_requires in META.yml
>> (and support in M::B, M::I, CPAN(PLUS))
>
>Actually, configure_requires is implemented only in the CPAN client,
> not in the configure script.
By "support in M::B and M::I", I meant `./Buil
On 5/23/07, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joshua ben Jore wrote:
> It appears to be insufficient to use Build.PL and also manually
> upgrade CPAN.
You need to upgrade Bundle::CPAN, not CPAN itself.
My experience recently has been that Bundle::CPAN is a poison pill. I
avoid it lest I
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 09:02:11PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Austin Schutz wrote:
> > Makefile.PL is supposed to be dying. Let's just kill the beast. Let
> >the first step to automating installation be installing new automation
> >tools. perl -MCPAN -e 'install Bundle::CPAN'. Is there any re
I think we've got some semblance of a plan forming. Now we just need to
get all of the players involved and do it, right?
Approximately:
1. CPAN(PLUS) needs-upgrade self-awareness
2. configure_requires in META.yml
(and support in M::B, M::I, CPAN(PLUS))
3. create_makefile_pl =>
# from Adam Kennedy
# on Wednesday 23 May 2007 04:27 am:
>> anything using Module::Install with a lot of dependencies should
>> require Module::Build. Bundle::CPAN and Bundle::CPANPLUS both do.
>
>...
>The main downside is that it will only work in subset of cases, since
>CPAN recursion is top do
# from Julian Mehnle
# on Wednesday 23 May 2007 02:13 am:
>And what am I supposed to do in the meantime, until I can install a
> fixed M::B? build_requires => { Module => 'v0.002.1' }?
Yep. Either that or "v0.2.1" or "0.2.1" or 0.002001 should work.
I'm not sure you should be using version in
On 5/22/07, Joshua ben Jore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5/22/07, Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's a problem with that: if you don't have a Makefile.PL, and
> someone's running an old CPAN that expects a Makefile.PL to be there,
> it'll try creating a Makefile.PL and fail badly,
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 20:35:37 -0700, "Joshua ben Jore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> On 5/22/07, Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There's a problem with that: if you don't have a Makefile.PL, and
>> someone's running an old CPAN that expects a Makefile.PL to be there,
>> i
Adam Kennedy wrote:
Hi Adam
Curious
Delighted to get a response.
So, any idea what you or I have done to Strawberry Perl to make your
version magically work and mine to fail? I would /really/ like to solve
this problem.
--
Ron Savage
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://savage.net.au/index.html
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> > Am I supposed to write version.pm-style version numbers literally in
> > Build.PL as opposed to constructing version objects (and _can_ I do it
> > or must I use numerical versions only)?
>
> Should be able to write anything that version.pm can compare. [...]
That's what I
# from Julian Mehnle
# on Wednesday 23 May 2007 01:35 am:
>| build_requires => {
>| Module => qv('0.002.1'),
>| }
>
>generates in META.yml:
>| build_requires:
>| Module: !!perl/hash:version
>Am I supposed to write version.pm-style version numbers literally in
>Build.PL as opposed to constr
Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
> I'm just answering Julian's questions because it seems that he is
> interested to hear the whole story.
Yeah, but my last question still remains: What's going on with my CPAN.pm
1.7602 NOT complaining about Mail::SPF being out of date while CPAN::
Version->vcmp("v2.00
# from Adam Kennedy
# on Wednesday 23 May 2007 12:15 am:
>The case of the virgin perl install, all the way up to the current
>production release of perl, is fundamentally and irrevocable broken
> now.
>
>There is nothing that can be done to fix it.
Except `perl -MCPAN -e "install CPAN"`, right?
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 06:44:47PM -0700, Joshua ben Jore wrote:
> On 5/22/07, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ># from Joshua ben Jore
> ># on Tuesday 22 May 2007 03:38 pm:
> >
> >>> Where *exactly* is "their prerequisites" defined?
> >>
> >>Well... I expect it to be in PREREQ_PM in Makef
15 matches
Mail list logo
