in reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Module::Build and the PPM
in thread Module::Build and the PPM

Uh, you keep saying stuff like this, but your only support for it appears to be that you made a suggestion on the list that wasn't accepted.

No. I just happen to be one of many who think the same way. And we've all been disregarded. How many folks have you seen in this thread or the other M::B threads saying the same thing? How many people have said the same thing elsewhere? When that many people hold the same opinion, even if I dont agree with it I'll respect it. It seems that the M::B crew think otherwise. And IMO those who think this breakage is acceptable or even a good thing are in the minority.

Regarding your Win32 comments, they dont wash. I _have_ nmake on my PC (and its freely downloadable in at least two forms) I also _have_ a C/C++ compiler on my PC (and a free version of cl.exe has been available from MS for some time now.) So im one of those folks who can get just about any module that doesnt have Linux specific library issues to install. EU::MM runs out of the box on my box, why shouldnt M::B? And if somebody files bug reports on a system that you dont directly work with dont you think it should be followed up on? I know I do.

Ultimately I hope M::B works out. But I think part of that will involve backing off from some of the decisions made, and possibly doing some community outreach. As it is M::B has a bad rep basically for a small set of reasons and until someone decides remove those causes I suspect itll stay that way.

Oh, and as a last thought has it occured to you what might happen? Folks might get so sick of M::B incompatibilities that they start parallel maintaining normal distros. How would you feel if someone started redistributing your work under a new name just becuase you decided to use M::B? To be honest I can see it happening. And that would just make the current EU::MM situation worse wouldnt it?


---
demerphq

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    -- Gandhi

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Module::Build and the PPM
by autarch (Hermit) on May 19, 2004 at 20:47 UTC

    How many folks have you seen in this thread or the other M::B threads saying the same thing?

    Just you so far, I think. No one else has made the claim that the Module::Build dev list ignored them because they weren't a big name in the community.

    How many people have said the same thing elsewhere?

    I dunno, not many I'd guess.

    And IMO those who think this breakage is acceptable or even a good thing are in the minority.

    Now you're on a different topic. I was specifically addressing your claim that you were ignored for not being a "big name". I still don't know what breakage you're talking about. It seems like it would be pretty hard to find a module on CPAN that uses Module::Build without providing some sort of Makefile.PL as well.

    Regarding your Win32 comments, they dont wash. I _have_ nmake on my PC (and its freely downloadable in at least two forms) I also _have_ a C/C++ compiler on my PC (and a free version of cl.exe has been available from MS for some time now.) So im one of those folks who can get just about any module that doesnt have Linux specific library issues to install.

    Well, having nmake and a compiler does put you in the minority, even for people who have to do some Perl on Win32 development. I was recently stuck doing some, and while I was able to install nmake easily enough, getting a compiler wasn't really an option. So I used PPM, like the vast majority of other Win32 Perl folks.

    EU::MM runs out of the box on my box, why shouldnt M::B?

    It should. No one is saying otherwise. If it doesn't, that's a bug. But seeing as not everyone has access to Win32 for Perl development, it is hardly surprising that there are bugs in Win32.

    And if somebody files bug reports on a system that you dont directly work with dont you think it should be followed up on?

    So you're saying you filed bug reports and Ken didn't even respond? Or he responded and couldn't fix them? The former would be bad, but I doubt it happened. The latter is certainly possible, and is hardly evidence of hubris.

    Oh, and as a last thought has it occured to you what might happen? Folks might get so sick of M::B incompatibilities that they start parallel maintaining normal distros. How would you feel if someone started redistributing your work under a new name just becuase you decided to use M::B? To be honest I can see it happening. And that would just make the current EU::MM situation worse wouldnt it?

    You might see it happening, but I don't. I'll deal with it if it happens, I guess.

[reply]

In Section Meditations