Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2013
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Tim Jenness <tim.jenness@gmail.com> 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. LeonThread Previous | Thread Next