I hope people will eventually drop that and go back to Makefile.PL, but that might be my biassed vision. But if the Build.PL example is added, it might be a small step to also include a dzil example. Down this road lies madness.
Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Do others think I should add the Module::Build recipe as well?
Thankfully, many modules that were originally built to use Module::Build, also provide a Makefile.PL. (One of those modules is Module::Build itself.)
I suppose there are still some modules that don't provide a Makefile.PL.
I guess the responsible thing to do would be to specify that the Module::Build mantra be used in those rare instances that a Makefile.PL is not provided.
I, however, would be tempted to provide a far more irresponsible (tongue-in-cheek) handling:
"If a Makefile.PL has not been provided then the module is not worth installing";
or (slightly less offensive):
"If a Makefile.PL has not been provided, file a bug report".
The former is, of course, not necessarily true - and the latter is probably little other than arrogant.
By way of explanation, I have always found Module::Build to be intensely annoying, and I try to avoid making any statements that might infer that the use (or even the mere existence) of that build process is valid or useful.
Cheers,
Rob
| [reply] |