Re: [Module::Build] should Pod::Readme vs. Pod::Text for README creation be a feature?

[Yitzchak Scott-T. <sth...@ef...>]

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 11:28:34PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 10:06:19PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> >
> >>Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >>
> >>>Just as META.yml can be forced to build with or without YAML by setting
> >>>the YAML_feature, shouldn't README creation depend on a feature?
> >>>
> >>>The other discrepancy is that Pod::Readme is recommended but YAML is
> >>>not; seems to me both or neither should be listed in recommends: in
> >>>META.yml.  Same with the other feature-enabling modules.  If not,
> >>>what are the criteria for what goes in recommends: and what doesn't?
> >>
> >>The requirement for creating README can't be properly expressed with 
> >>current limitations; It depends on (Pod::Readme || Pod::Text). The best 
> >>we can do is recommend one or both.
> >
> >
> >Pod::Text has been in the core since 5.002.  But even if it wasn't,
> >Pod::Readme makes a better README file; Pod::Text is just a fallback.
> >Hence the recommendation.
> >
> >I see a parallel with YAML; YAML makes a better META.yml than the
> >fallback, so it should be recommended.
> 
> Sorry, I guess I forgot about Pod::Text being in core. I can see the 
> parallel. Would the attached patch be ok?

I'd rather see YAML added to recommends than Pod::Readme removed.
Seems to me they both fit the mission statement of recommends.
(But I'm wishing more and more Module::Build had started out as
separate user and author distributions.)
 
> Can I also suggest a slight rewording of the auto_features descriptions? 
> ( s/^Can (.)/\u$1/ )

Fine with me.  I went to check how config_data displays these and was
a little surprised to see that it didn't.