Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Module::Build and the PPM

It comes with that option, but does the option work well?

If you write that as your Makefile.PL and then run it, you'll get error messages. Why? Because you don't have some of the files that passthrough says you require built yet.

If you're like me, you look at it and think that you need Module::Build::Compat to be loaded and run to crate them. So I did that. And got rid of all errors. Then built my tarball.

If you avoid errors by doing that under Linux, you'll actually wind up with an uninstallable tarball. Why? Because certain things have just been loaded by force, and are not overwriteable. What you need to do is have the passthrough, and ignore errors. When you build the tarball, the missing files will be built for you, but not until. (This was the case a few months ago. I don't know if it is now.)

I discovered this only after uploading to CPAN and having a CPAN tester complain about the uninstallable file. I didn't bother reporting the bug after I fixed it because the response the first time that I reported a bug dissuaded me from caring.

Perhaps this is better now. Perhaps not. As I mentioned, I didn't report it so I don't know. Besides, I explained to the CPAN tester what happened, I wasn't the first person that he saw make the mistake, and if that tester continued testing, then any other people making that mistake at least had a good explanation hand-delivered...

The fact that I didn't report it and I don't know whether it is fixed should be a red flag. Something is wrong with how they're dealing with the community. People in the community who're trying to communicate should not consistently become pissed off with the process. Once or twice, it is just some bad apples. If problems are consistent, at some point you really need to stop making excuses and say, "Why am I not being seen like I want to be seen?"

I submit that Module::Build has hit that point and should ask that question.

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Module::Build and the PPM

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Module::Build and the PPM by adrianh (Chancellor) on May 22, 2004 at 09:45 UTC
It comes with that option, but does the option work well? It does work well in my experience. I assume that the bug you mentioned has now been fixed. The fact that I didn't report it and I don't know whether it is fixed should be a red flag. Something is wrong with how they're dealing with the community. People in the community who're trying to communicate should not consistently become pissed off with the process. Once or twice, it is just some bad apples. If problems are consistent, at some point you really need to stop making excuses and say, "Why am I not being seen like I want to be seen?" From what I have seen on the M::B list bug reports are fixed quickly and patches are accepted. Evidently a few people's experiences have been different which is sad. Personally I don't think Ken's response to your initial report was as harsh as you seem to think it was - but YMMV. Ken's also recently said that he'll be removing his expressed personal preference from the docs. Personally I'd say giving M::B another chance. I've seen no signs of any arrogance on the list myself, only people trying hard to come up with a useful alternative to EU::MM.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: Module::Build and the PPM
by adrianh (Chancellor) on May 22, 2004 at 09:45 UTC

It comes with that option, but does the option work well?

It does work well in my experience. I assume that the bug you mentioned has now been fixed.

The fact that I didn't report it and I don't know whether it is fixed should be a red flag. Something is wrong with how they're dealing with the community. People in the community who're trying to communicate should not consistently become pissed off with the process. Once or twice, it is just some bad apples. If problems are consistent, at some point you really need to stop making excuses and say, "Why am I not being seen like I want to be seen?"

From what I have seen on the M::B list bug reports are fixed quickly and patches are accepted. Evidently a few people's experiences have been different which is sad.

Personally I don't think Ken's response to your initial report was as harsh as you seem to think it was - but YMMV. Ken's also recently said that he'll be removing his expressed personal preference from the docs.

Personally I'd say giving M::B another chance. I've seen no signs of any arrogance on the list myself, only people trying hard to come up with a useful alternative to EU::MM.

[reply]