[Bioperl-l] "progress": useful changes vs. "shiny new thingie"

Sendu Bala bix at sendu.me.uk
Thu Nov 16 02:47:28 EST 2006

Brian Osborne wrote:
> Sendu,
> If I'm understanding you correctly you're saying that someone checking out
> bioperl-live, HEAD, would not see a Makefile.PL if we chose to use Build.PL,
> yes? And there would be a Makefile.PL in the distributions, yes?

Yes, that is what I had meant. Though now following Hilmar's suggestion, 
I might create a stub in CVS for Makefile.PL that tells you to use 
Build.PL. I don't think it appropriate to have a working Makefile.PL in 
CVS though; not the old one for reasons outlined previously, and not one 
generated by Build.PL, because generated files don't need version 
control and only confuse matters when they become controlled.

Ok, so the current plan is:
# 1.5.2 keeps old Makefile.PL and gains HEAD's META.yml
# CVS core gets a Makefile.PL stub telling you to use Build.PL
# CVS db, run, network stay with Makefile.PL until after final release 
of 1.5.2, then move to Build.PL with Makefile.PL stub (because they 
don't have a 1.5.2 branch)

Is everyone happy with that, or are there further suggestions for 
something better?

More information about the Bioperl-l mailing list