[Module::Build] Re: ExtUtils::MakeMaker or Module::Build

[Randy W. S. <Ra...@Th...>]

Orton, Yves wrote:
>>>But as we start to put this together we run across 
>>
>>Module::Build.  In
>>
>>>the past I have always used ExtUtils::MakaMaker.  Is there 
>>
>>a preference
>>
>>>(if one were starting from scratch), to using one over the other?
> 
> 
> Personally my feeling is that Module::Build isn't mature enough for release
> ready code.
> 
> The fact that without manual intervention what it produces isnt compatible
> with CPAN is IMO a serious argument against using it, and poses serious
> questions in my mind about its suitability in 5.10.  Luckily it will be a
> long time before 5.10 is released, so Ken has lots of time to get it right.
> 
> BTW, it shouldnt be seen that I am critical of Kens efforts, I actually
> think his project is quite a good idea and will eventually be an excellent
> replacement for older tools. But IMO it is not production worthy code at the
> current time.
> 
> I dont know the logic behind using Build.pl instead of makefile.pl, but the
> fact that it doesnt create the later by defualt (or so I have been told) is
> in my eyes a serious mistake that will greatly reduce its overall uptake in
> the market.  And for those people releasing code without a Makefile.pl, I
> wonder at the point of putting such things on CPAN. (Others such as Randal
> Schwartz have said the same thing)

Module::Build has a compatibility feature that does in fact produce a 
Makefile.PL file for distribution. In addition, you can have both a 
Build.PL and a MakeMaker Makefile.PL if you want to go that route.

> Another serious issue with Module::Build is that for the last ages on Win32
> it doesnt. Have a look at the transaction report of trying to install it
> (using itself) from CPAN.  It doesnt play nicely with CPAN's prerequisite
> system, (a Makefile.pl program would have caused CPAN to autoload these
> prerequisites on my system by default) and fails build.

Module::Build has worked on Windows since version 0.16 (it also now 
works on Cygwin as of 0.21); I ported it. Unfortunately the latest 
release (0.21) had some Windows bugs that I didn't catch before it was 
released. Despite this last release, I have found it to be very stable.

>>There are nearly 200 distinct distributions on CPAN that now use 
>>Module::Build. And the number continues to inch upward. M::B is 
>>scheduled to appear in perl 5.10 and ultimately to replace MakeMaker, 
>>see perldelta. M::B doesn't require a make tool, so on 
>>platforms that do not include easy access to make, users can still build
> 
> and 
> 
>>install pure perl modules.
> 
> 
> I agree that the makeless make is a worthy objective, and Kens efforts are
> to be applauded. But IMO currently its a bit of a waste that these modules
> use it and are on CPAN. First off this means that they are unavailable to
> Win32 users, a group that make up the majority of the Perl user base
> (whatever the *nixens think). And for those that havent bothered including
> Makefile.pl's and only Build.pl's, well that code wont install cleanly from
> the cpan shell.
> 
> Anyway,
> thats my take on using Module::Build.
> 
> Yves
> 

I believe current releases of CPAN(PLUS)? do natively support Build.PL 
files, but I don't use either of them. (I prefer manual installs).

I'm not arguing; I just wanted to clarify a few points. ;) Module::Build 
is a long way from being complete, but I think it's further along than 
you think, and it's catching on relatively fast.

BTW, If you want to see who and what is using Build.PL, I generated a 
report a while back at 
<http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=3333245&forum_id=10905>

Regards,
Randy.