Re: [Module::Build] codebase? paths in .tar.gz?

[Glenn L. <pe...@ne...>]

On approximately 12/19/2003 12:53 AM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Randy W. Sims:
> On 12/19/2003 3:36 AM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Glenn Linderman wrote:
>>
>> For some reason I can't recall, I coded it so that codebase can only be
>> given from the command line via:
>>
>>  ./Build ppd codebase=.
>>
>> However, I'm pretty sure a codebase on "." will not work, but I won't
>> swear to it.
>>
>> A patch to make codebase settable via the new() method is probably good
>> thing, right Ken?
> 
> 
> I think you did the Right Thing. No one but the person executing the ppd
> target knows what the codebase should be, so it must be supplied by the
> user on the command line.

Well, no one but the person executing ANY command that takes parameters 
knows what the parameter value should be, but if there is a reasonable 
default, it can be helpful.

In this case, it seems to me that there is a reasonable default: the 
unqualified by path name file name produced by the build dist command.

-- 
Glenn -- http://nevcal.com/
===========================
Like almost everyone, I receive a lot of spam every day, much of it
offering to help me get out of debt or get rich quick.  It's ridiculous.
-- Bill Gates

And here is why it is ridiculous:
  The division that includes Windows posted an operating profit of $2.26 
  billion on revenue of $2.81 billion.
  --from Reuters via 
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/031113/tech_microsoft_msn_1.html

So that's profit of over 400% of investment... with a bit more 
investment in Windows technology, particularly in the area of 
reliability, the profit percentage might go down, but so might the bugs 
and security problems?  Seems like it would be a reasonable tradeoff. 
WalMart earnings are 3.4% of investment.