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.
  • I think Licenses is unnecessary - RMS can bite my shiny metal ass. As can your lawyer. As long as you have a LICENSE section in your POD (I violate this in several modules though).

    Telling me that Makefile.PL shouldn't prompt though is just wrong. There's a lot of cases where it should. What about optional modules (via ExtUtils::AutoInstall - the recommended way by CPAN testers)? What about locations of things like the httpd when you need to test mod_perl modules (and no, finding it in the usual paths isn't
    • by jdavidb (1361) on 2002.07.09 17:50 (#10337) Homepage Journal

      Prompting: well, like I said, it's not always possible. But if you can get those things into command line arguments it means I can decide them all up front and come back to that window after lunch. (It also makes it easier to put modules into core. The main perl source has recently eliminated one of the last interactive prompts (at install time). Of course, you may never want your mod_perl modules in core.  :) ) If someone's installing something as complicated as a mod_perl module, I'd say there's a good chance it doesn't need to run unattended or through CPAN.pm, anyway, so all bets are off. But the vast majority of Acme::Bleach and YA::Sort modules don't need to prompt me for such things as installation prefix.

      I figured licensing would be controversial.  :) I don't personally have the lawyer problem, but I figure some people might. (To some of us, pissing off the lawyers is worth MORE than having someone use the code. It's all a question of priorities.  :) ) In my case, I just sometimes wonder about a module with no indicated terms. Minimally, if the three letters "GPL" or "BSD" appeared somewhere, it would at least indicate the intent. There's been talk occasionally that you can't really produce an honest CPAN CD because of vague or unspecified licensing. (And, worst of all, "This module is under the GPL except that you may not include it on a CD." Another pet peeve...) In context my original concern (that didn't come out in the writing; too many trains of thought) is that your license best goes in a separate file like that. End of POD is okay. Beginning is going to make me curse your name every time I read your docs.  :) And, I've never seen it, but I'm sure one day there will be a Makefile.PL that prints out the full text of the GPL.

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • I *think* ExtUtils::AutoInstall allows some command line flags to either install everything or install nothing. Not sure though.

        As for CD makers, they should take some more time and effort over it - contact the authors of things you want to put on there, and offer them a free copy ferchristsake. The CPAN is a free resource and everyone can get it, so don't try and con people into thinking that it's a massive bonus to be able to get a version of this software without downloading it.