Processed: Re: Bug#578794: libclass-dbi-sweet-perl: FTBFS with newer Module::Build

[Joey Hess]

Damyan Ivanov: 
> Can debhelper prefer Build.PL over Makefile.PL? I vagueely remember
> discussing thes before, but can't recall what was the outcome (and
> can't find a bugreport about it).
> 
> In the mean time, I'll pass --buildsystem=perl_build in dbi-sweet's
> rules as a workaround.

Reordering debhelper buildsystems is Hard, because it has the potential
to make arbitrary packages FTBFS.

# Historical order must be kept for backwards compatibility. New
# build systems MUST be added to the END of the list.
our @BUILDSYSTEMS = (
        "autoconf",
        "perl_makemaker",
        "makefile",
        "python_distutils",
        "perl_build",
        "cmake",
        "ant",
        "qmake",
);

Now, perl_makemaker *must* come before makefile, so perl_build would
need to be moved to come before perl_makemaker. The risk then is that a
package with a Build file, that would have been built using makefile or
python_distutils before, will change to being built using perl_build.
Plus the obvious risk, that some perl packages might build differently
if perl_build is used vs perl_makemaker.

I don't feel comfortable doing it without running a full archive-wide
rebuild test. If someone wants to make it happen, and can arrange for
such a test on eg, the Grid 500, that'd be great.

-- 
see shy jo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-perl-maintainers/attachments/20100422/247e5dad/attachment-0001.pgp>