Thread: Fwd: [Module-build-general] Fw: Re: Module::Build::Compat should not recommend not having a Makefile

SourceForge Headquarters 1320 Columbia Street Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92101 +1 (858) 422-6466

Hi Ben,

Thanks for forwarding this message here, I wanted to make sure anyone 
with an opinion got a chance to express it.

A few thoughts of my own:

  * I think you assume I'm trying to switch everyone over to 
Module::Build.  I'm not.  I'm trying to provide an alternate 
installation mechanism that's better than MakeMaker.  Whether an author 
switches is their own decision.  If I can make it attractive enough 
(with the carrot, not the stick) for people to gain something out of 
the switch, then that's good.

  * Since I do think most people will be happier using Module::Build 
than MakeMaker, I want to try to increase its mindshare in the 
community.  For many people (the same people you mention who don't keep 
up with the latest "cool stuff" discussions), the only way they'd hear 
about the project is if they have to install it when some module uses 
it.

  * The thing that would probably make the most practical difference 
here is to patch CPAN.pm so that it supports Module::Build.  This won't 
be too difficult, and many people do keep CPAN up to date more 
diligently than they do with other modules.

Of course, if the prevailing opinion is different than my own, I'll 
change the docs.  When I read the thread on perlmonks though, it seems 
like most people weren't too upset at the omission of a Makefile.PL.

  -Ken

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Benjamin J. Tilly " <ben...@op...>
> Date: Thu Sep 18, 2003  2:42:59  PM US/Central
> To: mod...@li...
> Subject: [Module-build-general] Fw: Re: Module::Build::Compat should 
> not recommend not having a Makefile.PL
>
> I am forwarding this message as requested by Ken.  I am not on the
> Module::Build list, so please keep me in the CC list.
>
> My perspective is that CPAN authors should make at least a token nod
> towards attempting to be compatible with existing installations.  For
> the forseeable future a significant fraction of the installed Perl
> base will be using versions of Perl and CPAN which will break if
> Makefile.PL is not present.  Attempting to force them to change that
> decision (which may be made for many reasons, and at many sites is
> NOT a programmer-level decision) will create a certain level of
> knee-jerk resentment and ill-will.  I see no good reason to encourage
> this kind of problem.  My opinion is that attempts to shove a better
> way down people's throats is a good way to feel like you really tried
> while accomplishing negative work.
>
> Speaking personally, when there is an accepted standard way of doing
> things, I tend to look with extreme suspicion on anyone who tells me
> that I need to do things their own, newfangled way.  It would not be
> inaccurate to read that as, "I reject them out of hand until someone I
> trust tells me to reconsider."  I believe that this approach is fairly
> common.  And it is what I did when I heard about Module::Build.
>
> But now that I have reconsidered it, I can see benefits of using
> Module::Build.  I intend to update my handful of modules to use it as a
> convenience to potential Windows users.  However I see no reason to
> penalize people who aren't playing with the latest shiny toys, and so
> will use the backwards compatibility tool.  And I would encourage
> others to do the same.
>
> In short, encouraging people to use Module::Build and
> Module::Build::Compat so that their modules will install easily for the
> widest range of possible users seems like an effective way to advocate
> Module::Build.  Encouraging arguments by trying to break people who 
> have
> not been following the latest "cool stuff" discussions in the Perl 
> world
> is an effective way to leave bad tastes in people's mouths.  Therefore 
> I
> think that it would be good if Module::Build::Compat's documentation 
> and
> Module::Build's proponent's advocacy recommended that authors try to do
> what will be compatible with the largest number of possible users.
>
> Regards,
> Ben
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken Williams <ke...@ma...>
> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 10:20:05 -0500
> To: "Benjamin J. Tilly " <ben...@op...>
> Subject: Re: Module::Build::Compat should not recommend not having a 
> Makefile.PL
>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> Could you send a message (or forward this one) to the Module::Build
>> list, mod...@li... , so that we could
>> discuss the matter?  I'm inclined to keep the recommendation the same
>> way I have it and to work on patching CPAN.pm, but if more others feel
>> differently I could be persuaded otherwise.
>>
>>   -Ken
>>
>> On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 07:29  AM, Benjamin J. Tilly 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> While I appreciate that Module::Build was a lot of work and is trying
>>> to
>>> solve an important problem (making it simple to build standard Perl
>>> modules on non-Unixy platforms), it will cause problems if module
>>> authors break backwards compatibility with the vast majority of 
>>> current
>>> users of CPAN, and it is counterproductive to encourage them to do 
>>> so.
>>>
>>> Therefore please modify the documentation for Module::Build::Compat 
>>> to
>>> have it stop discouraging people from using it to get backwards
>>> compatibility with the existing installed base.
>>>
>>> For more on this see the discussion starting at
>>> http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=292164.  (This email is the
>>> one
>>> that I said I would send at
>>> http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=292366.)
>>>
>>> Ben
>>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Module-build-general mailing list
> Mod...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/module-build-general