Hi Yves,
demerphq wrote:
> I thought we agreed that it was ok to have to modules where blead leads?
>
> See the thing is, I would much rather have blead people apply commits
> to ExtUtils::Install and then I will occasionally update the dist and
> roll a new official release and also roll an upda
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 10:51:50AM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Methinks a nightly cron job to detect differences between core and
> current CPAN stable and mail a snarky message to p5p? :)
Blame attribution on the lines that are different would allow it to announce
whodunnit.
Nicholas Clark
lawso...@yahoo.com (Matt Lawson) writes:
> I am trying to choose between makemaker and build for use with my
> SWIG-generated .so file. I would prefer to use Build, as it is the
> shiny thing moving forward and would also dovetail more easily with
> what others in my organization are doing.
>
> H
2009/1/6 David Golden :
> For what it's worth, this is my first attempt at patching the perl source,
> much less sending a patch via git. But I'm very motivated to see M::B stay
> current in 5.10.1.
>
> It's also the result of my attempt to fix up add-package.pl -- that patch
> coming separately.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Rafael Garcia-Suarez <
rgarciasua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That patch steps over the changes below to Build.pm :
>
> commit e5c8c22050be81fb2e880f0c7a2fcbe5496ab5d7
> Author: Rafael Garcia-Suarez
> Date: Mon Jan 5 10:47:45 2009 +0100
>
>Bump two module versions
2009/1/8 David Golden :
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Rafael Garcia-Suarez
> wrote:
>>
>> That patch steps over the changes below to Build.pm :
>>
>> commit e5c8c22050be81fb2e880f0c7a2fcbe5496ab5d7
>> Author: Rafael Garcia-Suarez
>> Date: Mon Jan 5 10:47:45 2009 +0100
>>
>>Bump two modu
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:23 AM, David Golden wrote:
> Did the bleadperl team send patches to the module-build when they happened?
> I don't recall. If not, that would have made it much easier to manage
> rather than having to now figure out where everything diverged. If so, then
> I suppose it'
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Ken Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:23 AM, David Golden wrote:
> > Did the bleadperl team send patches to the module-build when they
> happened?
> > I don't recall. If not, that would have made it much easier to manage
> > rather than having to now fi
# from Dominique Dumont
# on Thursday 08 January 2009 00:30:
>I remember that I found on google a hack published by some guy to be
>able to build swigged extensions with Module::Build.
Math::GSL has some hacked-up internals of Module::Build in its build
classes which were stolen from somewhere e
# from David Golden
# on Thursday 08 January 2009 14:21:
>> I'm open to moving M::B to git (though I've never used git before)
>> or figuring out some new scheme to make this dual-life stuff easier.
>> I think it would be GREAT if we moved it to ext/ in blead so that
>> we didn't have to worry ab
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> I'm game for whatever VC system, but I'm "just the guy in shipping". I
> just ship whatever is in trunk|tip|master (or whatever you want to call
> it.) At best, I can handle *maybe* one or two bugs from RT per about 3
> months. Thus, I think
I see in bleadperl that ConfigData.pm exists in lib/Module/Build.
Anyone know if that is actually necessary? And, if so, how it should be
updated (if at all) since I think that's an install-time generated file?
Thanks,
David
I've backported a couple changes in bleadperl that were against 0.30 and
never made it into the M::B trunk: making $^X absolute during testing and
skipping a couple tests on VMS.
As far as I can tell, I think this is now ready to be released to CPAN as
0.3101 and then I'll prepare the patch file f
13 matches
Mail list logo
