Re: [Module::Build] UNINST=1?

[Ken W. <ke...@ma...>]

On Feb 21, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Tyler MacDonald wrote:

> Randy W. Sims <ml...@th...> wrote:
>>> It turned out I had to write "uninst=1" (lower case). I think we  
>>> should
>>> either support the uppercase method, or somehow change the  
>>> warning message
>>> that is displayed. In fact, doing both might be preferable. :)  
>>> The first
>>> option is trivial ... I think the second one falls into this domain:
>>
>> The first option would set bad precedent. We'd then have people  
>> wanting
>> direct translations of all MakeMakeresqe options. verbose, prefix,  
>> etc.
>
> 	Yeah, that's another thing I was going to mention. This subclassing
> thing is great and all, but I really miss being able to just write  
> a "sub
> MY::postamble" to paste makefile snippets for me... can we get that  
> put into
> Module::Build as well?
>
> 	...
>
> 	Kidding!

Dude, you almost sent me into some kind of manic rage! =)


> Seriously though, there's been quite the debate about
> PREFIX and it sounds like people are working to get that into
> Module::Build...

No, it's actually been done for quite a while now in the 0.27_xx  
branch - yet another reason we really need to get that branch out the  
door.


> I can understand Module::Build behaving differently where
> it provides a technological advantage, but when there's a feature  
> that's
> supported by both MM and MB and the difference is just a matter of
> commandline syntax or terminology, shouldn't we be making MB's  
> syntax as
> close as possible to MM's (or at least support MM's) to smooth the
> transition?

Yeah - my motto here is "compatible where possible".  Definitely  
where it's possible to support EU::MM compatibility, we should do so.

  -Ken