Re: Lancaster Consensus, deal with PUREPERL_ONLY=0
[email protected] (David Golden)
| Newsgroups | perl.cpan.workers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAOeq1c-oW3Ta4dox7ruFXEBJxMBhz1RaBunaufhZdL2-Mhy2=Q@mail.gmail.com> |
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 1:35 AM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote: > 1) compiler cannot create executables > 2) compiler works, but no perl headers > 3) compiler does, but shared library building fails (that is fragile and minor modifications at the system causes that process to fail) These three would all fail to make, which would abort installation. > 4) As you say: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=75672 Oooh! Excellent example. "make" succeeds and "make test" could fall back to PP when dynaloading fails. I wonder if there's a way to be clever about this such that under PUREPERL_ONLY, make never compiles the extension, and then the main module doesn't just try bootstrap inside eval{} but actually checks to see if the extension is in @INC. If so, bootstrap it or die; if not, fall back to pure Perl. David -- David Golden <[email protected]> Twitter/IRC: @xdg