K
kj
I have a large distribution that contains one small XS (it is
essential for performance, but conceptually rather secondary).
This causes ExtUtils::MakeMaker (or rather ExtUtils::Install) to
install the *whole* distribution under arch, even though 99% of
the installation is 100% architecture-independent!
Granted, there's nothing inherently wrong about this, other that
it is confusing to the casual observer (who is not even aware of
this small XS). And it seems perverse. And it annoys me.
Is there a good way to cajole EU::MM/EU::I into installing only
the architecture-dependent stuff under the arch directory?
I have tried all sort of tricks, but the best I have managed has
come at the expense of a grossly overgrown Makefile.PL, where most
of the additional code is there only to work around what EU::MM is
determined to do. This solves a confusing situation by creating
a new one.
Thanks!
kj
P.S. I'm aware of Module::Builder, but M::B enforces a policy that
requires the module maintainer to specify a license out of a small
set of possible choices, which is out of the question for us.
Besides, even if we could solve the problem above with M::B, we
use EU::MM for all our other packages (about 15 of them in total),
and EU::MM is still the Perl standard, we have decided to give
priority to the EU::MM-based installation option.
essential for performance, but conceptually rather secondary).
This causes ExtUtils::MakeMaker (or rather ExtUtils::Install) to
install the *whole* distribution under arch, even though 99% of
the installation is 100% architecture-independent!
Granted, there's nothing inherently wrong about this, other that
it is confusing to the casual observer (who is not even aware of
this small XS). And it seems perverse. And it annoys me.
Is there a good way to cajole EU::MM/EU::I into installing only
the architecture-dependent stuff under the arch directory?
I have tried all sort of tricks, but the best I have managed has
come at the expense of a grossly overgrown Makefile.PL, where most
of the additional code is there only to work around what EU::MM is
determined to do. This solves a confusing situation by creating
a new one.
Thanks!
kj
P.S. I'm aware of Module::Builder, but M::B enforces a policy that
requires the module maintainer to specify a license out of a small
set of possible choices, which is out of the question for us.
Besides, even if we could solve the problem above with M::B, we
use EU::MM for all our other packages (about 15 of them in total),
and EU::MM is still the Perl standard, we have decided to give
priority to the EU::MM-based installation option.