in reply to autoconf versus Configure-style

How about using the standard Perl module installation mechanism based on ExtUtils::MakeMaker, or the more convenient EU::MM-based ExtUtils::ModuleMaker? That way it can be installed just like any CPAN module:
perl Makefile.PL && make all test && make install

In fact when installing such a package via CPAN.pm, any dependencies on CPAN modules will be resolved automatically, just like for any other CPAN module.

Or even better, use the up and coming installation mechanism which does not rely on external make tools for much improved sanity: Module::Build. Installation then goes like

perl Build.PL && ./Build && ./Build test && ./Build install
although there's also a EU::MM compatibility mode where you can use the familiar Makefile.PL approach.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: autoconf versus Configure-style
by tpederse (Sexton) on Oct 13, 2003 at 20:00 UTC
    Thanks Aristotle,

    Just a clarification of sorts, most of our code isn't actually written as modules. One notable exception is WordNet::Similarity, and there we are in fact working on improving our Makefiles to help us out a bit.

    The packages that are a bit more perplexing are those that are collections of command line Perl programs that are sometimes held together via shell scripts, and/or might in fact call code that is written in C, etc. as well. Sort of a hodge-podge really.

    Do ExtUtils::MakeMaker and/or Module::Build seem appropriate in the non-module, somewhat heterogeneous scenario described above?

    Gratefully yours, Ted
      Many CPAN modules contain scripts that get installed in the system binary directory, so yes, you can use these same methods for script-only packages. It gets a bit muddier for the mixed language packages.. for these, I'd resort to autoconf.

      Makeshifts last the longest.