Re: [Module::Build] Module-Build-0.21 on OS/2

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

On 12/20/2003 3:17 PM, Ken Williams wrote:

> 
> On Saturday, December 20, 2003, at 10:40  AM, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> 
>>
>> I'm actually quite eager to dig into CBuilder, but it seems like 
>> everytime I get ready to something comes up. Fixing the Windows code 
>> should be trivial.
> 
> Ooh, I was hoping you'd say that. =)  It probably wouldn't be trivial 
> for me, because I'd have to start understanding how it works.
> 
> In fact, if you're interested, I'd be happy to hand the CBuilder code 
> over to you as official maintainer/owner.  Just let me know.

It's so much more fun when you're not maintainer; You still get to write 
code. You get to annoy the maintainer with patches, bug reports, feature 
requests, etc. Any you get none of the aforesaid annoyances. ;-)

Actually, I'd be happy to help out in any way I can, whether as 
maintainer, co-maintainer, or as an annoyance.

>> I've got a lot of the scaffolding already written for doing static 
>> builds; I don't think it'll take much to complete it. The code for 
>> building executables should also be trivial. I just gotta find some 
>> time...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's only recently that I've understood that doing static builds 
> is necessary.
> 
> I think that your synopsis a couple weeks ago of the various issues 
> related to CBuilder was good.  Some of them (like building executables, 
> for example) can easily wait until later versions, though - for now we 
> can just focus on doing the stuff that tools like M::B will need to 
> build XS modules.

I completely agree. For the foreseeable future all development on 
CBuilder should be driven by the requirements of M::B. The top priority 
being to get CBuilder to do what is currently handled internally by 
M::B. Then it can be extended to handle static builds, more platforms, 
etc. as needed.

Regards,
Randy.