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

[Chris Fields]

> Nathan S. Haigh wrote:
> > I believe Sendu mentioned that a Makefile.PL would be 
> included in the  
> > CPAN package but is not in CVS as it would be generated 
> from Build.PL 
> > for backward compatibility - is that right Sendu?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> > How does installing via CPAN affect this? Does it give 
> higher priority 
> > to Build.PL over Makefile.PL and thus use Build.PL for the install?
> 
> I don't know about priorities (but assume it would prefer 
> Build.PL), but in any case, the generated Makefile.PL 
> basically just calls Build.PL, so it makes no difference.
> 
> 
> > Build.PL helps all this by making is easier and quicker to 
> make CPAN 
> > packages. It also means we have a while before the "stable" 1.6 
> > release to ensure it is working effectively - better than 
> dropping it 
> > in on the 1.6 release isn't it? I think it's work the delay and an 
> > extra RC!
> 
> Yes, it surely needs to happen before 1.6. As suggested here 
> and originally in the other thread, 1.5.2 can be the 
> transition release with old Makefile.PL and Build.PL as well 
> (set up to not overwrite Makefile.PL).

So far, we have these modes of installation:

1)  Direct installation using CPAN -> INSTALL
2)  Regular distribution (either from the Bioperl website or CPAN) using
'make/nmake' ->INSTALL, INSTALL.WIN
3)  CVS (bioperl-live) using make/nmake -> INSTALL, INSTALL.WIN
4)  PPM (Windows-only) -> INSTALL.WIN

Anything using make/nmake will need to be changed in docs.  Do you want to
switch everything over to using 'perl Build.PL'?

Also, since the 'manifying' problem is now fixed we can remove the blurb
about it from INSTALL and the wiki.

Christopher Fields
Postdoctoral Researcher - Switzer Lab
Dept. of Biochemistry
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign