develooper Front page | perl.qa | Postings from March 2005

Re: Test::META

From:
Michael G Schwern
Date:
March 29, 2005 13:27
Subject:
Re: Test::META
Message ID:
20050329212722.GA23864@windhund.schwern.org
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:04:54AM -0500, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> I was. But at some level, I'm not.
> If after changing one dist to use M::B I have more issues than I started 
> with [which was just checking the syntax of my manually edited 
> META.yml], then there's no reason to move all of my dists; even if there 
> are only 6 of them.
> 
> However, the same could be said about my META.yml files period.
> They weren't broken; just incompleted. I'm the type of idiot that gets 
> the urge to put everything pertinent I can into my META.yml files, even 
> if E::M and M::B don't currently have the means to do exactly what I want.

See, this is what I don't understand.  You have an issue about the details
of the way MB generates META.yml, but MM barely generates it at all!  And
if you're manually editing it... why is the generation even an issue?
And you're worried about how create_makefile_pl translates recommends...
MakeMaker doesn't even have a recommend!

I can't see how the conclusion is "I'm going back to MM".  I could see
how the conclusion might be "I'm not using recommends anymore".


> >What's going on here?  One thing I see going on is that people are holding
> >Module::Build up to rediculously high standards.  Much, much higher than
> >MakeMaker ever was.  Anything Module::Build tries to do people still 
> >nit-pick
> >it to death, and here's the horrible part, they don't generate much 
> >patches.
> 
> I would think the same is true of any 'replacement' dist.
> I wonder if CPAN/CPANPLUS don't suffer from the same issue.

It doesn't seem to, but there was much less "voodoo" surrounding CPAN.pm.
Also less inertia.  There's less to learn going CPAN -> CPANPLUS.  Some
slightly different shell commands.

Then again, I'm not sitting in the middle of the CPANPLUS world.  I'm sure
Jos might have choice things to say.


> I'd be all to willing to take a stab at patching test_requires and the 
> ability to choose whether create_makefile_pl adds recommends: to 
> PREREQ_PM or not during create_makefile_pl.

Here's a compromise.  Instead of adding options to create_makefile_pl,
find a better default behavior.  What do Makefile.PL authors do right now
when they have a recommended module?  They ask the user.  Its not really the
author's choice, its the user's.  Have MB::Compat add a bit of code to the 
Makefile.PL which uses prompt() to ask the user for each recommended module 
if they want it installed.  If they do, throw it into PREREQ_PM.  If they
don't, don't.


> But the former meant getting the META.yml spec updated as well, which 
> didn't seam like something that would happen anytime soon. Maybe that's 
> a bad assumption.

It feels like they're ready for it.  Anyhow, its simpler to just patch the
code and then let the spec follow. :)


> So back to M::B I shall go, and I'll make it do my bidding come hell or 
> high patch water.

Thank you.




nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About