Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Every single Fail report on v0.1.4 is due to "No 'Makefile.PL' found - attempting to generate one".

    Actually, every fail report is due to:

    [ERROR] [Mon Jul 16 19:12:23 2007] This module requires 'Module::Build' and 'CPANPLUS::Dist::Build' to be installed, but you don't have it! Will fall back to 'CPANPLUS::Dist::MM', but might not be able to install!

    The clue is in the [ERROR] tag...

    I would prefer to *not* include Makefile.PL at all because there is another configuration scheme which says "prefer Makefile.PL over Build.PL?" (And of course it defaults to the wrong answer.)

    You will keep running into issues like these until either all machines have Module::Build support, or the config_requires: extension to META.yml is accepted, implemented and supported in all deployed versions of CPAN

    • When CPANPLUS says:

      [ERROR] [Mon Jul 16 19:12:23 2007] This module requires 'Module::Build' and 'CPANPLUS::Dist::Build' to be installed, but you don't have it! Will fall back to 'CPANPLUS::Dist::MM', but might not be able to install!

      and then

      No 'Makefile.PL' found - attempting to generate one

      it is trying to be helpful. But the smoker module (be it CPAN::YACSmoke, CPAN::Reporter or whatever) should recognize this case as NA and not FAIL. Would it be hard to tell this case apart?

      On another note, Bundle:

      • generating a traditional Makefile.PL in the name of compatibility.

        Isn't that more courtesy towards the user than some old ritual one has to follow? I'm constantly amazed by such ideas as Module::Build::Convert [cpan.org], which tries to automate a process for which there is absolutely no need - if it works with a Makefile.PL why move to Build.PL at all.

        • Isn't that more courtesy towards the user than some old ritual one has to follow?
          Yes. But we want to encourage users to move to brand new updated tools, don't we? Using only Build.PL makes sense if (1) that is supposed to work only for newer Perls and installations, or (2) you don't care if your module does not work unless people have up-to-date toolchains.
        • a process for which there is absolutely no need

          That depends on whether you consider EU::MM fundamentally broken or not.

      • Would it be hard to tell this case apart?

        Actually yes it is. This part of the configuration is not captured well in EU::MM and M::B and as a consequence CPAN.pm and CPANPLUS have to jump through hoops to get at it. Last time I checked EU::MM handles this better.

        recognize this case as NA and not FAIL.

        NA has a specific meaning, in that the module does not work on that perl/platform. This isn't the case in this situation, so should be a FAIL as the author is not providing support for the current standard toolchain. If they choose to insist on M::B then at the moment that will break be

  • Wouldn't a Makefile.PL with jsut a die just hurt the average Joe who falls for the trap because he sees a Makefile.PL? The CPAN testing won't really care and will just keep sending you FAIL reports.
  • These failures are legitimate failures, and should remain.

    When you choose your build system, as when you choose ANY dependency, you get its errors and baggage along with its good points.

    Module::Build has an unresolved circular dependency on itself.

    Unlike EVERY other module on CPAN, it says that the rules do not apply to it and that instead of working within the rules, EVERY end user should magically (via the "universal education" clause) know to install it BEFORE they start installing anything else.

    This mea
    • "Module::Build has an unresolved circular dependency on itself." isn't quite correct. Distributions that require Module::Build need Module::Build, but Module::Build will build just fine without anything but it's own tree.

      Yes, that is a problem if the CPAN(PLUS) client can't know that it is fatally out-of-date. Everything is a problem if we have to expect an old tool (which could be easily updated) to do the right thing.

      Requiring a particular *version* of M::B does need configure_requires. But the co

      • Still, I await the day when we apply the final fix.

        There is another alternative to the problem/solution you suggest in that post. For every existing module pointed-to by those indices, set the URL (and checksums) of the distribution release to the location of a distribution release that upgrades the toolchain. Yes, there would be an uproar if preparations were not made by user education via public announcements and a months-ish waiting period, but it would achieve the desired effect. Mandatory upgrade ("if you're using old versions of our tools, so sorr

    • The entire reason the configure_requires: features is being added is that the problem is now unrepairable

      “Now unrepairable”?! Yeah right! It was never a problem before, which is why CPAN::MakeMaker was never invented. Pffft.

      The CPAN toolchain has always had this problem. Module::Build just put the tweezers on tight enough to force a fix.

      Go on, shoot the messenger as much as you want. Won’t change anything about the reality of his message, but hey…

      and we need to take more dr

    • I hear ExtUtils::MakeMaker works quite nicely.

      ... provided that, and I paraphrase your message elsewhere, "EVERY end user should magically (via the "universal education" clause) know to install [a working make utility] BEFORE they start installing anything else."