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

[Randy W. S. <ml...@th...>]

Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> 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.

That's not what you said in your initial mail: ;)

 >>>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?
<<<

> Seems to me they both fit the mission statement of recommends.

I guess it could go either way. I tend to favor features because it 
gives the author has a chance to describe to the user exactly what 
functionality is disabled because of which missing dependencies.

> (But I'm wishing more and more Module::Build had started out as
> separate user and author distributions.)

This has come up before, though it's been a while. And with some of the 
recent discussion, I've been thinking about more myself for the last 
week or so. It could be done I suppose, just installing stubs for the 
authoring actions that used the developer bundle if present or printed 
instructions if not. Maybe we can put this on the wish-list, at least 
for discussion, for 0.32 or so (after XS improvements & recursive builds).

>> 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.

Yeah, I think this should go on the TODO list, unless someone wants to 
provide a patch?

Randy.