Hi,
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 09:48:37AM -0300, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:24:06 +0200, Angel Abad (Indio) wrote:
>
> > > I will ask to upstream, but I think the recompilation of Grammar is
> > > only for Config::Scope developers.
>
> That was indeed a good idea.
>
> > The upstream author email me this:
> > "you are right, the P::RD is only necessary if a developer
> > wants to change parts of the grammar. A module user doesn't
> > need the patch. He should not patch his P::RD module."
>
> Ok.
>
> > So, I think if the user doesnt need the patch I can package the module
> > without patch.
>
> The question is if the patch is used during building of the package
> (the .tgz in the source package doesn't hurt IMO).
No, the .tgz is only used if you edit lib/Config/Scoped/Grammar.prd,
then you need to rebuild lib/Config/Scoped/Precomp.pm via
make precompile
This is only made by module develpers, and the .tgz isnt used during
the normal build via
perl Makefile.PL
make
make test
make install
Other thing Gregor, I will not include example/cfgtest.pl in the
package because it has no sense out of the distribution tarball.
I will switch to unstable the package.
Bye!
> My first impression was that it is used via Makefile{,.PL}; now I
> tried to build it after moving patched-prd.tgz away, and it works,
> and the outut doesn't show any signs of using the patch either.
>
> So I guess all is fine, and my alarm clocks went off a bit early ...
>
> Cheers,
> gregor
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature