It might be an extra level or two, but it's been working for ExtUtils::MakeMaker, even on Windows, at least as far back as 2002, and making use of the Makefile generated from a perl Makefile.PL is part of their design philosophy.

I know other similar tools make use of a ./Build.PL, but I haven't used that toolset, so don't know if that idiom has an intermediate step as well, or not.

Since I had some experience in automating README and similar tasks using MakeMaker for my few distros, I figured I'd share that knowledge.

Again, sorry!

I said "we use" and was questioning the general approach, which is the mainstream as far as I understand.

And I can also understand that most of the first Perl programmers came from a C background.

I'm certainly not criticizing you and thankful for you sharing your approach.

My concern was on a meta level ...

I've heard people talking about Ruby's own native build process Rake and the benefits and synergies this creates.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

I've heard people talking about Ruby's own native build process Rake and the benefits and synergies this creates.

I think you have a good point mentioning this.

One may suggest that Perl could use its own Make-like program. It certainly could.

But then again, maybe not if one looks at it from the point of view of spawning "yet one more of these". GNU Autotools uses Perl heavily. Perhaps Perlers of the 90's thought that can be a synergy. And it was. Albeit it relies also on m4.