A couple of times recently I've had to deal with distributions that
have both a
Makefile.PL. I've never been sure of
the right way to handle such dists, and in both of the recent times
I ended up with problems. From talking to various people on IRC and
elsewhere, it seems like there's no good reason to have both.
Personally I go with Makefile.PL (with ExtUtils::MakeMaker) if
it's someone else's dist, or Dist::Zilla if it's a full adoption.
I had done a number of releases of Text::Autoformat, using
make dist. But for the 1.70 release, for some reason I used
The main module has two cuckoo modules, which don't have their own
$VERSION. PAUSE wasn't happy with the 1.70 release, and as a result
didn't index it. I don't understand everything about this,
but KENTNL kindly raised a
PAUSE bug on this.
In this case I'm going to switch to Dist::Zilla (with DCONWAY's ok)
and refactor the two cuckoo packages into regular modules.
You could go with
but I've also had
with that recently.
Plus it's about to be dropped from the core Perl distribution,
which for me is a good argument to either go with ExtUtils::MakeMaker
(which is being actively maintained at the moment), or Dist::Zilla,
which isn't in core, but is actively maintained, and makes your life easy.
There are 6,330 distributions with a
Build.PL on CPAN,
and 27,851 with a
Makefile.PL. Of those, 3767 have both.
I think these are all the result of Module::Build building
Makefile.PL via Module::Build::Compat.
Are there any good reasons to have both?comments powered by Disqus