Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from February 2009
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:21 AM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > Slightly related to the make_ext thing is the possibility of moving > all the .pl scripts (and actually all the perl scripts) out of the > root directory into a new "build tools" directory, (which i have been > calling 'btools' as its reasonably likely to be unique). > Anyway, the point is, in this it appeared that all was necessary for > vms was to add [.btools] in front of the relevent script calls in > vms/descrip_mms.template, would you concur that this would be correct? > > For instance like this: > > dynext : $(LIBPREREQ) $(DBG)perlshr$(E) preplibrary makeppport $(MINIPERL_EXE) > - $(MINIPERL) make_ext.pl "MAKE=$(MMS)" "--all" > + $(MINIPERL) [.btools]make_ext.pl "MAKE=$(MMS)" "--all" > Does that look right? Yes, that looks right. > And, er, any thoughts on whether its a good > thing to move the core specific build utility scripts to a single location? I don't know what particular itch this might be scratching as it's one I don't seem to have. But nor do I have any great objection to it. If you look at it from the point of view of a platform-specific porter, it's much easier to find his or her tidbits of interest under ./foo where foo is the platform name. If you look at it from the point of view of a pumpking or cross-platform porter, surely it's better to have everything under ./bar, where bar is a logical group of things that serve a particular purpose, whether it's ext or btools or whatever. Ideally, ./foo wouldn't have anything that is generalizable or applicable to more than one platform and ./bar wouldn't have anything that is non-generalizable and only useful on one platform. I'm really not sure where the intersection of those two ideal worlds might be.