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

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

On approximately 12/19/2003 4:05 PM, came the following characters from
the keyboard of Randy W. Sims:
> 
> Argh...

Ah, now we share the same feeling :)

> You're right, there is no directory structure in the file you sent. I 
> didn't believe it, so I downloaded Module-CoreList and did a perl 
> Build.PL, perl Build, perl Build dist, and got the same results... a tar 
> dist with a flat directory structure. I'm confused.
> 
> There was a discussion on the list early November, "Help: Module::Build 
> V 0.21 under WinXP" where this same problem came up. I traced through 
> it. M::B was working. A::T was was working. Off list talking with Ron, 
> we found the problem to be the tar program he was using; I sent him my 
> working version, and everything worked. Now same circumstances, and the 
> solution has apparently changed. The only thing different is the 
> computer I'm using right now has perl 5.8, whereas I did my testing 
> before on a system with 5.6, but that shouldn't make a difference.
> 
> I am convinced that the problem is not in M::B, nothing there has 
> changed since I looked into it before...

Well, I suppose that different versions of A::T could change something 
too, although published interfaces should stay consistent....

> Unfortunately, I won't be able to investigate this further until 
> tomorrow :-(.

Well, "perl build install" works, for my personal use... but I'd like to 
be able to package it for a few others that might want to use it.  But I 
have weeks of work to do on the rest of the program before then, so 
tomorrow should be soon enough.  :)

-- 
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.