On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 04:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Ovid <publiustemp-moduleautho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Me? I use M::B for most of my modules. Generally don't need to, but I > provide a Makefile.PL for those who don't like MB. However, if I have > complicated build needs, EU::MM is very, very hard to work with. I find this too. Of all my modules, any of them that don't have XS code in them simply provide a dual Build.PL / Makefile.PL as written by M::B's create_makefile_pl => 'traditional' setting. It only becomes even vaguely complicated on a few of my XS ones, where M::B expects to find lib/Foo/Bar.xs whereas EU::MM wants only Bar.xs This random inconsistency annoys me - IMHO M::B's behaviour here is much more preferable, for reasons of being able to find the code, of making the file unique in case I want more than one,... Furthermore I just find M::B to be nicer from an ideological perspective. EU::MM writes a Makefile, so we can use GNU make or BSD make or MSVC make or... why, exactly? M::B is written in perl. It works in perl. I -generally- dislike build tools to rely on other languages, but when it's a build system _for perl_, I suspect one could make a reasonable case for it :) -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans leon...@leonerd.org.uk ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
