Front page | perl.module-authors |
Postings from December 2010
Re: Recommended builder?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
John M. Gamble
Date:
December 4, 2010 11:22
Subject:
Re: Recommended builder?
Message ID:
4CFA94DF.6070603@ripco.com
David Golden wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Octavian Rasnita <orasnita@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there a module you recommend for creating CPAN packages?
>>
>> Module::Build, Module::Install, ExtUtils::MakeMaker, Dist::Zilla, another one?
>>
>> Is one of them more compatible with CPAN, CPANPLUS, App::cpanminus, or better maintained, prefered for the future?
>>
>
> All of the module builders you list are compatible with all the CPAN
> clients you list.
>
> None of them are "best" but they offer different tradeoffs. Here is my take:
>
[cutting to the chase...]
> Module::Build -- this is the 'pure perl' alternative. It is very easy
> to customize compared to EU::MM but you can't rely on users having a
> new enough Module::Build for any given feature unless you target Perl
> 5.10.1 (which added the ability for CPAN/CPANPLUS to bootstrap tools
> you need *before* running Build.PL)
>
What features do you mean? I shifted over to Module::Build when I was
still using Perl 5.6.
My packages are not complicated (single .pm file; pure perl; the
"create_makefile_pl"
set to 'traditional' for non-Build users), so maybe there's something else?
[more cutting...]
> Dist::Zilla also can create a new "boilerplate" distribution, similar
> to Module::Starter or h2xs. The other three do not.
>
> I have switched to Dist::Zilla and many other prolific CPAN authors
> have as well. (It was written by RJBS, the most prolific CPAN author
> of all, so he has some perspective on what's the easiest thing for
> managing CPAN distributions). If you are interested in learning
> Dist::Zilla, the online tutorial is the way to go:
> http://dzil.org/tutorial/start.html
>
> If you don't want a complete solution, the question is how much
> customization do you need (to the test process, distribution packaging
> process, etc.)? If the answer is "a lot", then I would recommend
> M::B. If the answer is "very little", then I would recommend M::I.
>
Huh. I would never have considered Module::Build complicated (but then
again, I don't have
complicated modules). On the other hand, thanks for pointing out the
Dist::Zilla tutorial, that's
going to be very helpful.
> Avoid direct EU::MM entirely.
>
Yep.
> I hope that helps. (I hope users of other tools find my descriptions
> relatively objective. My apologies for any excessive bias.)
>
> Regards,
> David
>
>
-john
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next