[Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs. "shiny new thingie"
cjfields at uiuc.edu
Wed Nov 15 19:01:57 EST 2006
I think he means the actual releases or the 1.5.2 branch, not CVS.
Sendu, I am seeing a general consensus towards not using Module::Build just
now. Lincoln, Aaron, and Brian all seem to want to wait; Hilmar and I also
had stated previously that this should probably wait until after 1.5.2
(which you seemed to agree with). I think we are all for the idea of moving
forward, but it's a lot to impose just prior to a release (not to mention
I think the old Makefile.PL is still in the 1.5.2 branch. So maybe we
should stick with that for now (i.e. not change over to Module::Build on the
1.5.2 branch). The install script fix that Brian committed to Makefile.PL
in CVS HEAD prior to removal could be merged to branch-1.5.2.
We could leave the Module::Build stuff in CVS for the next release to work
out the bugs. I'm not sure whether we can have both Build.PL and
Makefile.PL in CVS HEAD, but I don't see why not. Wouldn't 'perl Build.PL'
just overwrite the old Makefile.PL anyway?
Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
Dept. of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Osborne [mailto:bosborne11 at verizon.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5:32 PM
> To: Sendu Bala; Chris Fields
> Cc: aaron.j.mackey at gsk.com; bioperl-l
> Subject: Re: [Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs.
> "shiny new thingie"
> This is not right. I just removed all the build stuff,
> Makefile* and Build*, and did an update. There's no
> Makefile.PL, it's not part of the distribution, there is Build.PL.
> Brian O.
> On 11/15/06 6:08 PM, "Sendu Bala" <bix at sendu.me.uk> wrote:
> > exactly that; Makefile.PL will be part of the distributions (having
> > been generated by Build.PL).
More information about the Bioperl-l