Re: [Module::Build] Re: Summary was: Re: something broken between Module::Build, CPAN.pm, and ExtUtils::MakeMaker

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

Hi,

This summary, like any summary, is most appreciated.  It helps me to 
clarify where I see things differently, though I agree with some of 
what's being said here.



> On 2/16/06, Tels <nos...@bl...> wrote:
>>
>> For any module, especially the ones for installing other modules (e.g.
>> M::B, EUMM, M::I and CPAN) there are three (not nec. distinctive) 
>> crowds:
>>
>>   * A - the original source code author and maintainer.[0]
>>   * D - developers, e.g. other people who want (or must, via 
>> dependencies)
>>     use the module in their code. Often includes A, too.
>>   * U - mere users, who just want (or must, see above) to _use_ the
>>     module's functionality. Can also include A and D.
>>
>> Fact of the Day:
>>  Any module which wants to replace the current build system (EUMM) 
>> must
>>  please[8] all three crowds or it will fail.[1]

M::B is of course trying to please all three of A, D, and U.  I had 
hoped that would be obvious, but in case it's not, I'm re-stating it.


>>
>> Pleasing U does, among other things, require to solve the chicken-egg
>> problem.


Well, M::B is a chicken which knows how to lay itself as an egg.  And 
CPAN and CPANPLUS or whatever tool know how to install M::B because it 
ships with both a Build.PL and a Makefile.PL and has since nearly day 
one.  So at the top of the dependency tree there's a terminus.

The issue is thus reduced to making sure other distributions can 
declare their dependency on M::B in a way that the tools will 
recognize.  M::B::Compat is our current solution for this.  It 
generates three different kinds of Makefile.PLs for authors to include 
with their distributions.  We've put a lot of work into them, which 
should be Exhibit A for showing that we care about such users.  I'm 
sure we can improve our tools, but I do want to make it clear that they 
exist and have since April of 2002.


>> What Module::Build claims is that it pleases A and D. From that is 
>> infered
>> that U will also be automatically pleased.

I have never ever made such an assertion.  I do understand that there 
are issues U considers critical that A and D don't really care much 
about (unless they're wearing their U hats).

Also, we do indeed try to please U in M::B.  Witness for example the 
'diff' action, and the fact that a huge motivator for the entire 
project for me is to be able to generate *good* rpms/debs/ppms/etc for 
any M::B-using CPAN module.  There's an immense infrastructure 
necessary to do that well, and probably A and D will never care about 
it at all.

Who is making such an inference, anyway?


>> So, we have critism from U about not being pleased (Adam writes about
>> this, for instance). To this there are responses along the lines:
>>
>> * U might be displeased or not, but D is very pleased[4]:
>>   http://tinyurl.com/du7yc
>>   Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

It's here that you lose me.  I don't know if "Bzzzt. Wrong answer" and 
the advocacy in the rest of the message is really "summary" fodder.

Anyway, we've identified some things about the Makefile.PLs that can be 
improved.  We'll do so.

Specific issues we can fix, or at least identify, are great.  But I 
resent some of the implications going around that our whole philosophy 
of the project is wrong, or that somehow we're evil for wanting to 
create and release a better build system.  These things are 
complicated, and if some area is substandard that's because it needs 
tuits, not because we don't care about our users.

  -Ken