Hi Yitzchak,
Apologies for the delay, the end of last week was a bit hectic..
On Thursday, September 25, 2003, at 11:50 am, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 10:00:14AM +0100, Steve Purkis
<spurkis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 24, 2003, at 06:05 pm, Yitzchak
Scott-Thoennes
wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 05:29:23PM +0100, Steve Purkis
<spurkis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 24, 2003, at 07:06 am, Yitzchak
Scott-Thoennes
wrote:
Couldn't install Module::Build...the manpage names contain colons.
Patch below fixes it. Looking at MakeMaker, I see MM_UWIN and
MM_OS2
($^O eq 'uwin' and 'os2', respectively) also use '.', but have no
special code in Module::Build. MakeMaker uses '__' for DOS,
Module::Build uses '.' (via Platform/Windows.pm).
Might make sense to use '__' for cygwin then, to preserve MM
compatibility.
I assume you mean DOS, not cygwin. cygwin should use '.'.
Actually, I was a bit confused there. I meant cygwin, but then I've
just looked at MM_Cygwin, which inherits its manpage separator from
MM_Unix ('::' again), so M::B was backwards compatible to begin with.
Perhaps MM_Cygwin's manpage generation is broken?
I don't know if we are looking at the same thing. I see this in
MakeMaker:
You're quite right - I'm looking at EU::MM v6.05, and that's got an
older MM_Cygwin.pm (v1.04). Couldn't see a reference to it in the
Changes file, but it looks like that's one thing that's changed.
So it was backwards compat with a broken MM_Cygwin. Oops :).
As an aside, I always thought it would be a bit more useful to
generate
HTML manpages on Win32 & friends, considering they don't have a 'man'
tool by default. I suppose cygwin supplies one, so it's not a problem
there. But there might be a case for an option that lets the user
build HTML or MAN pages.
I'd think whether to install HTML would be a separate option, unrelated
to man pages.
Yeah - that discussion really belongs in a separate thread.
I didn't see a Module::Build subclass for the others
you've mentioned, so I left them out of the original patch[1].
Perhaps stubs for them should be created too?
Only if someone is going to try them. I don't even know what uwin
is.
Point taken.
What are the plans for integrating into the core? As soon as you do
that, the people who maintain the various ports will be pretty much
forced to get things working.
I imagine the CPAN Testers and p5p will be involved, but I don't know
what the plan is. Ken's your best bet for that question.
( Still, it will most likely be in the core by 5.10.0 - if you haven't
already, see:
http://search.cpan.org/dist/perl-5.8.1/pod/
perldelta.pod#Future_Directions )
-Steve
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
|
