[Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs. "shiny new thingie"
bix at sendu.me.uk
Wed Nov 15 19:27:31 EST 2006
Chris Fields wrote:
> 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
> Thanksgiving here!).
> 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.
Its certainly possible to stay with Makefile.PL on the 1.5.2 branch. I
/think/ that if I took a META.yml generated from HEAD's Build.PL and
added it to the branch that should solve the CPAN issue at least.
I would just want clarification that the consensus really is to stay
with Makefile.PL for 1.5.2. The primary argument seems to be to not have
anything too new and untested in the branch, but Makefile.PL itself has
lots of new additions. My Makefile.PL improvements and the change to
Build.PL have all been in the name of making 1.5.2 install well. The
move to Build.PL was just the most appropriate way to fix some bugs and
make needed changes.
> 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?
It would, but why would we want both in CVS? I'd strongly advise the
cessation of development on the old Makefile.PL, and if it isn't going
to be added to anymore, nor used by anyone, why keep it in CVS? It's
just going to cause confusion and problems with people coming across
issues in the old Makefile.PL. Wasted development time if someone tries
to fix something in Makefile.PL that was already solved in Build.PL.
Bizarre behaviour if you were doing something with old Makefile.PL but
then managed to overwrite it with Build.PL's Makefile.PL and suddenly
you're working with a whole different script.
In short, not the most optimal of situations.
More information about the Bioperl-l