[Bioperl-l] No more Makefile.PL (MakeMaker -> Module::Build)

Stefan Kirov stefan.kirov at bms.com
Fri Nov 10 11:16:24 EST 2006

I personally like the idea. Why not have both for this release to ensure 
smooth transition? Sendu, would having Makefile.PL (I mean the old one) 
along with the build script be a problem? I am not very familiar with 
both modules, but from the pdoc it seems it should not be too hard:

Note that if you want to provide both a Makefile.PL and a
Build.PL for your distribution, you probably want to add
the following to "WriteMakefile" in your Makefile.PL so
that MakeMaker doesn’t try to run your Build.PL as a nor­
mal .PL file:

PL_FILES => {},


Chris Fields wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2006, at 4:15 AM, Sendu Bala wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Since I'm seeing inadequacies with the current Makefile.PL scripts we
>> have, I'm thinking of converting from ExtUtils::MakeMaker and the
>> Makefile.PL scripts to Module::Build Build.PL scripts.
>> The advantages this will bring would be creation and installation of
>> documentation, sane handling of required and optional dependencies,  
>> and
>> hopefully good META.yml output, for CPAN compatibility wrt version  
>> numbers.
>> I'll be able to use Module::Build::Compat to automatically generate
>> Makefile.PL scripts in 'passthrough' style (if an end-user tries to  
>> use
>> Makefile.PL without having Module::Build installed, it will offer to
>> install Module::Build for them) when it comes time to make
>> distributions, but Makefile.PL would no longer be in CVS.
>> One thing I'm not clear on with the current situation is what is
>> supposed to happen when the user chooses to install scripts. Where are
>> they supposed to get installed to, and where do end-users normally run
>> them from and how? How does this compare to expectations from other  
>> perl
>> module distributions that have installable scripts?
>> Please comment and discuss, but I'd like to get this done for the  
>> 1.5.2
>> release so that the CPAN distribution will be happy.
> I don't have a problem with this as long as it works for all  
> systems.  It sounds like a good long-term solution, esp. for CPAN  
> developer releases.
> However, we've already had three RC's using the regular old  
> Makefile.PL setup, which seems to work fine for now.  It also sounds  
> like we will need to update all relevant installation documentation  
> (since we can't run 'perl Makefile.PL' w/o Makefile.PL, unless I'm  
> missing something).  Hence I'm a bit worried about adding something  
> new like this after three RCs and just before a final release.
> I think it's something we should do, but I'm not sure we should have  
> it for this release.
> Christopher Fields
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Lab of Dr. Robert Switzer
> Dept of Biochemistry
> University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> _______________________________________________
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
> http://lists.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/bioperl-l

More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list