Re: [Module-build-general] A better passthrough Makefile.PL

[Dave R. <au...@ur...>]

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Ken Williams wrote:

> I've been ruminating on this, and I think what I want to do is put hooks
> into M::B that will use EU::AI if it's installed (and if the user wants
> auto-installation), but that EU::AI should remain the way to
> automatically install modules.  M::B should use EU::AI, not Borg its
> code.  Obviously this is better from a separation-of-labor & modularity
> point of view, and I think it feels better from a policy point of view
> too.
>
> EU::AI can be a recommended dependency for M::B then.

But some of what EU::AI just makes sense for M::B.  M::B already breaks up
dependencies in a more fine-grained way the EU::MM, so why not go a step
further and do what EU::AI does, and offer a break not only by
build/test/run but also by feature.  This is just generically useful.

I also like the idea of being able to specify that _specific tests_
have a dependency, so M::B can just skip them if that dependency is not
satisfied.

In other words, I think have a very full-featured dependency handling
feature is an important goal for M::B.  Auto-installing of modules is not
what I was aiming at.  M::B should cooperate with CPAN and CPANPLUS in
this regard (or use EU::AI, etc.)

> A very related problem is the idea of alternative dependencies - for
> instance, Crypt::SKey needs either Digest::MD4 or Digest::MD5, but
> there's no great way to indicate that with M::B's dependency
> specification right now.

Good thing to add.  I wonder if the current way of doing this as a hash of
"module name => version spec" is too inflexible?

I almost wonder if supporting a mini-language might be best.  We already
have the beginning with the version spec, so maybe something like:

 'Foo::Bar >= 2, <= 3.5 | Foo::Baz == 2.1'

??


-dave

/*==================
www.urth.org
we await the New Sun
==================*/