Re: [Module-build-general] MakeMaker Is DOOMED!

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

On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 12:06  AM, Brian Ingerson wrote:

> On 17/02/03 14:09 -0600, Ken Williams wrote:
>>
>> Then there are the cases where in order to get something installed
>> correctly, I just can't manage to do the job properly using EU::MM, so
>> I have to turn to M::B.
>>
>> For many of my modules, I've been distributing with both a Makefile.PL
>> and a Build.PL, and before too long I'll probably turn the 
>> Makefile.PLs
>> into pass-throughs when it gets too hectic for me to manage both of
>> them.  But I won't do that for crucial modules until M::B is more
>> well-known and more widely distributed and tested.
>
> I agree with all this. I am definitely in favor of M::B over EU::MM. 
> And
> in a perfect world, every Perl module would use a perfect version of
> M::B that was installed on every installation of Perl. But we ain't
> there yet. The technical and social bootstrapping is going to be a long
> and winding road with many cats to shepard. I'm looking for ways to
> abstract over both systems to smooth the transition.

Sounds like exactly the way I feel too.

>> And what of the people who have been sending me bug reports that say
>> that M::B doesn't work right on Win32, even though I tested it fine on
>> my iBook?  Maybe at some future date we'll be able to make modules 
>> that
>> a) have no unspotted bugs, and b) have no cross-platform issues, but I
>> don't think we're there yet.
>
> Right. This is assuming a more mature M::B of course. But we're getting
> there relatively fast no?

Yeah, but you have to remember, it's Software.  It's always going to 
have problems.  We'll never actually get to Wally World. ;-)

  -Ken