On Wed, 06 May 2009 10:31:54 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
> I've only got two responses, but it seems that at least two people
> other than myself think it's worthwhile to revert the behaviour of
> dh-make-perl to choose Build.PL before Makefile.PL. However, I do not
> know the reasoning for changing this behaviour, so it is entirely
> likely that I've missed something.
Since quite some time dh-make-perl defaults to debhelper 7, so it
just puts "dh build" in debian/rules which calls dh_auto_configure,
which prefers Makefile.PL over Build.PL. So the change would need to
happen in debhelper, not in dh-make-perl.
(dh-make-perl's "old" (as in dh pre-7) debian/rules templates prefer
Build.PL, IIRC.)
> My argument for switching to Build.PL over Makefile.PL is thus: in
> Module::Build modules that produce a Module::Build::Compat Makefile.PL
> for compatibility, there is a Makefile left around even after the
> cleanup happens. This looks like a bug in Module::Build::Compat not
> adding Makefile in with its cleanup scripts, but nonetheless, it
> sticks around and wreaks havoc until it's removed.
M:B:C also creates the infamous .packlist files ...
> If you do a 'debian/rules clean', it will run Build.PL's cleanup which
> removes Build and all intermediate files, EXCEPT for the Makefile that
> was generated.
Well, seems like there are at least 2 bugs in M:B:C which should be
fixed instead of worked around :)
> For various reasons the general consensus seems to be to pick Build.PL
> first, and fall back on Makefile.PL if unavailable.
> I look forward to seeing what others have to say about this.
Besides my notes above I have no strong opinion on which way to
prefer ...
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
`- NP: Paul McCartney & Wings: Eleanor Rigby/ Eleanor's Dream
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature