Re: [Module-build-general] Article on perl.com

[<and...@an...>]

>>>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:30:04 -0600 (CST), Dave Rolsky <au...@ur...> said:

  > I wrote an article about Module::Build for perl.com, and it's now
  > available at http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2003/02/12/module1.html

Thanks for that article!

Please send me your patch to CPAN.pm that supports Build.PL. I cannot
promise that I can work on it (tuits, tuits!), but I'll at least
consider doing it.

There's one thing that immediately came to my mind but you didn't
discuss it. You write:

    Another possibility is to create functionally equivalent Build.PL
    and Makefile.PL scripts. If you're using Module::Build because you
    need to customize installation behavior in a way that is difficult
    to do with ExtUtils::MakeMaker, this pretty much defeats the
    purpose of using Module::Build at all, and in any case having two
    separate pieces of code that do the same thing is always
    unappealing.

Let's imagine, Module::Build could write an *equivalent* Makefile.PL.
One that could then be used with ExtUtils::MakeMaker (and without
Module::Build). If that were possible (even just for 80% of the
modules out there), that would convince many developers to switch, as
they would just distribute both Build.PL and Makefile.PL (no
duplicated work). The result would not bother anybody among the user
community, as they would not even notice that Module::Build had been
working. For the 20% of complicated modules, Module::Build could just
die() with a few FIXME messages and that might be an incentive to many
a developer to actually produce patches. Maybe I'm missing something,
and surely this has been discussed before, but if you could discuss
this idea, I'd be interested to hear your arguments.

-- 
andreas