Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>The easy thing would be to remove the Build.PL from ExtUtils::ParseXS,
>ExtUtils::CBuilder, etc
Euggh. The Build.PL protocol is superior to the Makefile.PL protocol;
we should be able to (eventually) not require make(1) at all in the
toolchain.
Is this just a circular depen
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 15:43, David Golden wrote:
> (b) Upgrade ExtUtils::Manifest to 1.58 (which includes MYMETA among
> the default skip list when no MANIFEST.SKIP exists)
Thanks David, this works for me.
Although, I am following the discussion whether the test makes sense at all.
Hinnerk
brian d foy wrote:
> In article <4b7eff1d.8060...@pobox.com>, Michael G Schwern
> wrote:
>
>> And other .pm files do:
>>
>> use perl5i::VERSION; our $VERSION = perl5i::VERSION->VERSION;
>
> I'd rather see explicit versions in the code just so I can see a file
> and know what version it is w
In article <4b7eff1d.8060...@pobox.com>, Michael G Schwern
wrote:
> And other .pm files do:
>
> use perl5i::VERSION; our $VERSION = perl5i::VERSION->VERSION;
I'd rather see explicit versions in the code just so I can see a file
and know what version it is without running code or having the
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Andreas J. Koenig
wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:57:07 +1100, Adam Kennedy said:
>
> > There is no reason to impose this kind of thing on end users, as the
> > failure does not actually prevent the module from working, and the end
> > user will have no w
