[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Dual-Build Modules (What to do if both Makefile.PL and Build.PL exist)

On Fri, 08 May 2009 09:46:25 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:

> Because ExtUtils::MakeMaker goes way back in Perl (it's really really
> really old stuff), pretty much every installation of Perl will also
> have EUMM. On the other hand, this is not so with M::B.
> * Have only a Build.PL. If Module::Build isn't installed then the
> module will break completely.

That's not an issue in debian since M::B is included in perl-modules
since 5.10 (which is shipped in lenny). (And for perl < 5.10 packages
can still build-depend on libmidules-build-perl.)

> What we might be able to do is use Ryan's idea in the interim -
> providing an environment variable to do that stuff. In that case, the
> pkg-perl team could do a trial run using that (or simply patch
> debhelper locally for our machines) and see if we ever come across a
> module that breaks due to that. If we try it for a few months with no
> breakages then I think we have a much better argument to submit
> upstream to Joey et al.

Using a locally patched debhelper for creating packages that are
uploaded to the debian archive doesn't sound like a good idea :)

JFTR: I'm not opposed to the switch in general, it's just don't I
don't see practical advantages for us yet.

 .''`.   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: Carole King: No Easy Way Down

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: