Slash Boxes
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.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • 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 effort in that as there has been in EMM, it would be the superior choice, but Luddites are happy to say "broken makefiles and hard-to-maintain code are OK with me because I don't have to write them!"

      If people keep refusing to adopt potentially better tools because those tools are not ready yet, we'd never have had Perl.

      The stuff I did at Kineticode would have been very difficult with EMM because we overrode and added many actions. That, combined with the fact that those who really have worked on EMM are often begging us not to use it should be a clue. So I use MB, along with an EMM fallback, to try and be an example of others. I used to advocate MV and my modules didn't use it, so I figured I should eat my own dogfood (and again, at work, it's been fantastic).

      • 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.