On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Eric Wilhelm
wrote:
> But it does mean that those wishing for the compatibility layer to allow
> them to comfortably continue to exist in 1999 are out of luck.
+1 to that!
-- David
Indeed. While configure_requires fixes Module::Build in the general
case, it's by no means going to fix the fact that the passthrough is
not a valid solution to the problem in the first place.
Adam K
2009/3/23 Eric Wilhelm :
> But it does mean that those wishing for the compatibility layer to all
# from Ken Williams
# on Sunday 22 March 2009 08:23:
>> I agree - let the configure requires on M::B be either the current
>> version or the version set in Build.PL configure requires, whichever
>> is lower.
>
>If Build.PL sets configure_requires, I'd think that would take
>precedence no matter wh
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:22 PM, David Golden wrote:
>
> I agree - let the configure requires on M::B be either the current version
> or the version set in Build.PL configure requires, whichever is lower.
If Build.PL sets configure_requires, I'd think that would take
precedence no matter whether
My first reply didn't go to the list.
I agree - let the configure requires on M::B be either the current version
or the version set in Build.PL configure requires, whichever is lower.
David
On Mar 21, 2009 6:35 PM, "Eric Wilhelm" wrote:
# from Alexandr Ciornii
# on Saturday 21 March 2009 13:02
# from Alexandr Ciornii
# on Saturday 21 March 2009 13:02:
>What you all think about this: if 'create_makefile_pl' is
>'passthrough' (Makefile.PL will run Build.PL) and Module::Build is not
>in configure_requires, add it there with minimum version 0.10
>(increase later).
Sure. There's currently
Hi
What you all think about this: if 'create_makefile_pl' is
'passthrough' (Makefile.PL will run Build.PL) and Module::Build is not
in configure_requires, add it there with minimum version 0.10
(increase later).
--
Alexandr Ciornii, http://chorny.net
