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.
  • by Matts (1087) on 2006.12.01 11:03 (#52005) Journal
    Frankly the more I read about weird problems with Module::Build the more my gut tells me "Just use ExtUtils::MakeMaker".

    What advantage do *you* get by using Module::Build?
    • I've answered this too many times. People always ask by the answer is readily available with even a quick search. Some people like MB, some people don't.

      It's easy to override actions. It's easy to add custom actions. It's one hell of a lot easier than trying to debug weird Makefile issues -- particularly if it's someone else's bug and you're not sure what platform they're on or which strange 'make' lookalike they're using. It's a potentially far superior choice to and if there were half as much effor

      • There is nothing in your posts about any attempts to actually work with ActiveState to fix the issues. Did you contact them?

      • "If people keep refusing to adopt potentially better tools..."

        And there's the problem. So far, it's NOT better for most people. If you're indeed not doing subclasses and overrides to tweak 'how it works', EUMM is far far more less problem prone than MB is. I dread the day it goes core, because it's jut not ready.

        So, for your situation, yes, I bet MB is getter. For us readers who aren't going that, we just read the "MB failed" part and shake our heads. :-/

        MI I can tolerate, although it it's just wrapping EUM
        • So far, it's NOT better for most people.

          Perhaps those mythical "most people" should report bugs. I respect the M::B developers immensely, but I suspect they have as difficult a time as I do fixing bugs for which the only details we hear are "Oh it didn't work."

          At least resolve the antecedents!

        • I dread the day it goes core, because it’s jut not ready.

          If more people were using it, more bugs would get prodded and it would be ready sooner. Instead, we just get lots of pundits pointing out that “EUMM works for me.” Well I’m sure that’s great.

      • Well the thing is I've got a few modules on CPAN, and even a few that override actions, and I've never once had an install failure because of weird Makefile issues reported to me. I've had lots of other bug reports, but never one because of this.

        I respect that overloading actions is troublesome in EMM, but most people don't ever do it. If you need to then using Module::Build is a very valid course of action, though it's not something that EMM can't do (albeit in an unbelievably ugly manner).
        • To be fair though, has ActiveState ever sent you a bug report? I've never received one, installer-related or otherwise.

    • What advantage do *you* get by using Module::Build?

      The fact that he still cares to release software is the advantage.

      Like Ovid, I prefer to use modules with comprehendable documentation, decent APIs, and a hope of maintenance. I've yet to see a single person who's complained about my use of Module::Build take up my offer to let him or her write and maintain parallel MakeMaker code for me.

      I don't support my code on Win32 because it's just too painful to develop there (and likewise, it's been years s