develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from May 2013

Re: RFC: Deprecating Module::Build

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Leon Timmermans
May 24, 2013 15:25
Re: RFC: Deprecating Module::Build
Message ID:
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Tim Jenness <> wrote:
> It wasn't sudden really, in that the repository had been using Module::Build
> for a couple of years. It was sudden in the sense that I didn't tell anyone
> about it. This was because I was under the mistaken impression that
> Module::Build was the recommended way of distributing modules these days and
> that MakeMaker was effectively deprecated (that's that sense I got a few
> years back).

Module::Build was the recommended tool for some time, and then it went
out of vogue, for various reasons. After that it was Module::Install
that was the hottest thing, since it seemed to combine M::B's ease of
use for the author with ExtUtils::MakeMaker. That became a rather
top-heavy solution and seems to be the least maintained or recommended
option of them all nowadays.

Quite frankly, I do think we need to have better build tools to point
people at when we tell them "this is not really recommended anymore".
I still believe the core vision of Module::Build (a pure-perl build
tool) was the right one, but it's implementation is not salvageable.

> I've been conscientiously migrating all my modules over to
> Module::Build and now I find that I should have left them with MakeMaker (or
> gone crazy and adopted Dist::Zilla).

Generally speaking you should do whatever works for you, it's just
File::Temp that was being special.

> I hadn't considered the problem of Module::Build needing File::Temp and
> File::Temp needing Module::Build.

Yeah, we need to make sure all dependency maintainers are aware of
this issue, but that's just a matter of sending them a simple email.


Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About