Perl/Build.PL VsMakefile.PL

Snipped from BZ#205309:

Comment #3 From Jose Pedro Oliveira (jpo@di.uminho.pt) 	on 2006-09-06 17:47 EST

A couple of notes about "Makefile.PL vs Build.PL" or "ExtUtils::MakeMaker vs Module::Build"

1. If a perl distro includes both the Build.PL and the Makefile.PL file, there are good chances that the Makefile.PL has been generated from the Build.PL file. In these cases is better to package the module using Build.PL (BR: perl(Module::Build). Note: in the past the generated Makefile.PL not always installed correctly.

2. In the past the documentation of Module::Build stated that Module::Build Module::Build changelog) and both installation methods will be supported.
 * would* replace ExtUtils::MakeMaker. This now has been corrected (see the

3. In the past the Michael G Schwern's presentation "MakeMaker Is DOOMED! or MakeMaker is dead! Long live Module::Build!" also caused some confusion. (http://schwern.org/~schwern/talks/MakeMaker_Is_DOOMED/slides/slide001.html) Michael Schwern was at the time the perl test guy and the maintainer of ExtUtils::MakeMaker.

4. Module::Build is a perl core module since perl 5.9.4. Perl 5.10 will supported Makefile.PL and Build.PL natively. Right now Module::Build must be installed from CPAN or from a package repository. Module::Build is rather important as it doesn't require external utilities such as make (and its flavours) which is a must if you must support lot of platforms (UNIX, VMS, Win32, ...)

jpo