requst for review: PR/61621

[Sergey Skvortsov]

Mathieu Arnold wrote:

> |> Why not reuse only the bits that are in 
> |> 
> |> devel/p5-Module-Build/inc.build.mk
> | 
> | Tedious to include.
> 
> Well, I meant just put what's in there in bsd.port.mk :) I know it's not
> easy to use :)

All of your include file is used in this patch.
But this is not sufficient.

> |> They are the only ones needed, and I've not seen yet a modules that only
> |> comes with only a Build.PL and no passthrough Makefile.PL.
> | 
> | There is no guarantee.
> | And I suppose building modules via Module::Build has some advantages.
> 
> Well, the Makefile.PL are just passthrough that run perl Build.PL, and
> generate a makefile that will call perl Build. When I started with M::B, I
> redefined do-build and do-install... But I felt it easier to maintain to
> just use the passthrough Makefile. You're right, there is no guarantee that
> it will always be, but it has been so far :)

This patch is intended to naturally support Module::Build-driven ports.
The next step - move all perl-related stuff into bsd.perl.mk.
So the minimization of handling logic is not so important.
And all new logic also will be moved into new .mk

> And you should define ALL_TARGET?= build so that it has a resonable default
> I guess.

Empty target also works.

> And, you'll have to account for M::B build process, it should use
> PERL_MODBUILD=yes, but it should not depend on M::B, or it'll kinda loop :)

p5-Module-Build should use usual "PERL_CONFIGURE" and redefine 
do-(build|install).

Special check for portname 'p5-Module-Build' in bsd.port.mk is overkill 
and must be avoided.

-- 
Sergey Skvortsov
mailto: skv at protey.ru