On 2/16/06, Ken Williams <ken@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Let me reconsider my reasoning here from scratch. The original point
> that Adam & Yves were making, IIUIC, was that distributions should
> include a Makefile.PL. If they don't have one at all, then of course
> we don't need to worry about clobbering one! So I'd be fine with
> changing the default in this case to provide some flavor of Makefile.PL
> generated in the dist directory.
Yes that was my point.
> The main question would be what style to make it. 'traditional' is
> accessible by more people, but will often be broken (if, e.g., there
> are config questions or auto-sensing in the Build.PL they'll be lost to
> the Makefile.PL), so I'd be inclined to choose 'small' or 'passthrough'
> for this case.
>
> That should make most people happy, no?
In general yes. But I think its worth considering that traditional is
preferable. This
http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=458282
argues that the traditional provides more flexibility for the end user.
Cheers,
yves
--
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
|
Try Searching:
servers, voip, java, networking, microsoft ...
|
|
|
| 
