[xen-tools] Re: More changes

[Steve Kemp]

On Sun Sep 02, 2007 at 10:19:38 -0700, C.J. Adams-Collier wrote:

> >   ie. I don't see that we need:
> >
> >     Make -f makefile install   (install docs + bin/*)
> >     perl Makefile.pl           (generate Makefile for module)
> >     make install               (install lib/*)
> 
> Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.  It would be:
> 
> make (output list of supported targets, as is currently done)
> 
> perl Makefile.PL (generate CPAN-style Makefile)
> make -f Makefile (build blib/ directory)
> make -f Makefile test (run Test::Harness test suite as defined in
> CPAN-style Makefile)
> make -f Makefile dist (build a tarball for distribution on the CPAN)

  Again I don't see why that is necessary.  I have no plans to
 distribute to CPAN, nor do I think it is a useful thing to do.
 Certainly if installing the package places the library files
 into the correct location that should be fine for you in
 your use case, and it avoids fragmentation and overhead.

  e.g. How do I update META.yml?  It seems like that would be
 a pain to do prior to release.

> You may be asking yourself why we would want a CPAN-style build system
> at all. 

  Exactly.

> I guess the answer might be that having a build system that
> complies with the standard Perl distribution mechanism buys the
> project support from the community and integration with the CPAN
> Testing Service and listing in the CPAN registry.

  I think, ahem, that we already have community support.

> If a handle is kept to a single running libperl instance, the overhead
> of exec()'ing the binary is only incurred once.  The handle could then
> be issued requests as needed.  This would only incur an in-process
> stack push rather than a call to the kernel for memory allocation,
> process creation, etc.  If libperl supports threads, the overhead
> could be reduced even further.  But I'm getting out of my depth at
> this point :)

  OK, noted.

> Good to hear.  If the lib/ patch is applied, I'll remove that tarball anyhow.

  I've just mailed you separately, but if the Makefile stuff were
 removed I'd apply it immediately.  I'd be keen to drop the use of
 Moose (hey that rhymes!) but I could live with it if there were
 a good reason for it.

Steve
-- 
http://www.steve.org.uk/