Re: Re^3: Module::Starter, a helper for new module authors

Passthrough Makefile.PLs and auto-installation have worked well in solving the installation issue for me.

That's a pretty poor solution if you weren't already installing via CPAN.pm.

I recently had a case where I was trying to create an automatic build for the Krang CMS that would rebuild a set of modules from source and install them in a local directory without running tests. I made a script using Expect that managed to automatically handle most of the installation. Then I hit Devel::StackTrace, which uses Module::Build. I had to basically write a whole new install procedure for it, since it needed entirely different commands with different options. I also had to install Module::Build first, and all for one module that doesn't even do anything that the simplest Makefile.PL couldn't handle.

I would be more understanding about it if it were being used for things that ExtUtils::MakeMaker can't do. When that isn't the case, it just seems gratuitous.

Comment on Re: Re^3: Module::Starter, a helper for new module authors

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Module::Starter, a helper for new module authors by adrianh (Chancellor) on Apr 06, 2004 at 09:01 UTC
That's a pretty poor solution if you weren't already installing via CPAN.pm. Fair point. However when I'm not installing from CPAN I don't find adding one more module to the usually long-list of prerequisites much hassle either. Then I hit Devel::StackTrace, which uses Module::Build. I had to basically write a whole new install procedure for it, since it needed entirely different commands with different options. But those different commands give the end user more options/improved functionality. I prefer install_base to the scary magic that lives behind EU::MM's PREFIX. I can understand the annoyance that the commands are different, but I think different commands are necessary to support improved functionality. I would be more understanding about it if it were being used for things that ExtUtils::MakeMaker can't do. When that isn't the case, it just seems gratuitous. It is doing things EU::MM can't do. For example: Automatically generating licence meta-data. Working on platforms without a `make` Built in help system User can diff the distribution with what's installed Now I can understand that these are not important issues for your particular application, but they (and others) are for me. I'm not trying to force everybody to move to M::B. There are things it doesn't handle well yet (XS support is still shaky, nested builds, etc.) That said M::B does more of the things that I want more easily than EU::MM. YMMV.	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^5: Module::Starter, a helper for new module authors
by adrianh (Chancellor) on Apr 06, 2004 at 09:01 UTC

That's a pretty poor solution if you weren't already installing via CPAN.pm.

Fair point. However when I'm not installing from CPAN I don't find adding one more module to the usually long-list of prerequisites much hassle either.

Then I hit Devel::StackTrace, which uses Module::Build. I had to basically write a whole new install procedure for it, since it needed entirely different commands with different options.

But those different commands give the end user more options/improved functionality. I prefer install_base to the scary magic that lives behind EU::MM's PREFIX.

I can understand the annoyance that the commands are different, but I think different commands are necessary to support improved functionality.

I would be more understanding about it if it were being used for things that ExtUtils::MakeMaker can't do. When that isn't the case, it just seems gratuitous.

It is doing things EU::MM can't do. For example:

Automatically generating licence meta-data.
Working on platforms without a make
Built in help system
User can diff the distribution with what's installed

Now I can understand that these are not important issues for your particular application, but they (and others) are for me.

I'm not trying to force everybody to move to M::B. There are things it doesn't handle well yet (XS support is still shaky, nested builds, etc.) That said M::B does more of the things that I want more easily than EU::MM. YMMV.

[reply]
[d/l]