perl packaging, Makefile.PL versus Build.PL?

perl packaging, Makefile.PL versus Build.PL?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  still going to have a few more questions on the standards for
packaging perl source into OE recipes, here's the first one.

  as i read it, there are two build standards for perl source in OE:

  cpan.bbclass:		Makefile.PL build-based
  cpan_build.bbclass:	(newer) Build.PL build-based

so if one peruses the source at CPAN, it should be obvious which build
system is relevant, no? so what about source that has *both* those
files?

  https://metacpan.org/pod/Parse::DMIDecode

which has both of those install scripts in the top-level directory,
although the INSTALL file clearly refers to the newer build system:

  perl Build.PL
  perl Build
  perl Build test
  perl Build install

does it make any logical sense for both of those files to be there?
backward compatibility? any other reason? or am i just wildly
misunderstanding something?

rday

-- 

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                                 Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
                        http://crashcourse.ca

Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn:                               http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: perl packaging, Makefile.PL versus Build.PL?

[Jens Rehsack]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1773 bytes --]


> Am 18.11.2016 um 11:24 schrieb Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>:
> 
> 
>  still going to have a few more questions on the standards for
> packaging perl source into OE recipes, here's the first one.
> 
>  as i read it, there are two build standards for perl source in OE:
> 
>  cpan.bbclass:		Makefile.PL build-based
>  cpan_build.bbclass:	(newer) Build.PL build-based

Err: Wrong - Module::Build has been written after ExtUtil::MakeMaker exists,
but it has been removed from Perl core, because ExtUtils::MakeMaker is
much better maintained and has better compatibilities (even if it still
can improved ^^)

> so if one peruses the source at CPAN, it should be obvious which build
> system is relevant, no? so what about source that has *both* those
> files?
> 
>  https://metacpan.org/pod/Parse::DMIDecode

Look into it: https://metacpan.org/source/NICOLAW/Parse-DMIDecode-0.03/Makefile.PL
shows clearly, that the Makefile.PL is a wrapper for cpan shells which don't
support Build.PL (very old, but when Nicola uploaded it in 2007, 5.8 was bleeding
edge and 5.004 or 5.005 were widely spread.

You can also refer to https://github.com/rehsack/Packager-Utils/blob/master/lib/Packager/Utils/Role/Packages/Bitbake.pm#L507-L517 for some inspiration.

> which has both of those install scripts in the top-level directory,
> although the INSTALL file clearly refers to the newer build system:
> 
>  perl Build.PL
>  perl Build
>  perl Build test
>  perl Build install
> 
> does it make any logical sense for both of those files to be there?
> backward compatibility? any other reason? or am i just wildly
> misunderstanding something?

For some people: yes. For others: No.

Cheers
--
Jens Rehsack - rehsack@gmail.com


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 859 bytes --]