Looking more at this, two of the 3 dependencies you use are core --
these are fairly safe to add to the required dependency list.
The one that is non-core is Config::Autoconf. Windows is presumably a
single autoconf target (or a small set of them), so it may be possible
to include the post-configuration files for Windows in the distribution.
That means Config::Autoconf will only be used at development time.
On Thu Nov 08 18:13:49 2012, JKEGL wrote:
> I am very much in your debt. There's been a lot of talk about porting
> to Windows, but you are
> the one who finally did the work.
>
> I do not have access to a Windows box as of this writing. I'd very
> much like to see your patch.
> Is the github repository convenient for you? If not, I'd like to see
> it whatever form is
> convenient.
>
> As for bringing Windows support into the main distribution, I'd like
> to, consistent with the
> following thoughts:
>
> 1.) I don't want to introduce any new dependencies that will affect
> non-Windows users. That
> is, I'm open to "requiring" the three packages you suggest, but I do
> not want to make them
> general CPAN requirements. There are ways to accomplish this in a
> Build.PL.
>
> 2.) I think in the Windows environment, binaries are possible and
> expected -- they will
> usually not want to install from CPAN.
>
> One approach is to make the changes needed for Windows "downstream",
> then push them up
> to me. I then incorporate them in a way that does not affect
> POSIX/UNIX installs. This makes
> the build code more complex for all users but, unlike the extra
> dependencies, this is a price I
> am willing to pay. It also risks breaking the install for POSIX/UNIX
> users, but that risk can be
> controlled with testing.
>
> Thanks, jeffrey
>
> On Thu Nov 08 17:38:47 2012, jddfr74 wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I want to install Marpa::R2 on a box that does not have (or with
> great
> > difficulties to get it running - I gave up) autoconf, namely Win32
> of
> > course -;
> >
> > I succeeded in a portable way to remove entirely autoconf or any
> other
> > binary (like tar) dependency in the CPAN package using:
> > - Config::AutoConf
> > - Archive::Tar
> > - ExtUtils::MakeMaker (the latter only because Module::Build does
> not
> > permit to build a static library).
> >
> > That is Marpa::R2 builds and install fine on Windows in addition to
> my
> > debian box, this solves a Marpa::R2 installation issue IMHO.
> >
> > After cloning Marpa--R2's git there are two different autoconf
> > dependencies, it seems:
> > - the develoment phase up to the packaging which relies quite
> heavily on
> > it, and which is fine, this is how it is on your box and how
> Marpa::R2
> > grows -;
> > - the published package on CPAN, which contains a tiny, but fatal on
> > Win32 (+ perhaps other OSes), autoconf dependency
> >
> > My question is if you would agree to move to
> > Config::AutoConf+Archive::Tar+ExtUtils::MakeMaker alternative, that
> > would affect the following files (I used the structure of CPAN
> package,
> > not the one on git):
> > - Build.PL
> > - inc/Marpa/R2/Build_Me.pm
> > - inc/Marpa/R2/Config.pm
> > and if yes, how you would like to see the patch: as a diff done on
> CPAN
> > package, or a git diff.
> >
> > Thanks, Regards, Jean-Damien.
> >
> > ps: minor thing, I guess there is a missing #include "config.h" in
> > avl.c, an issue with the 'inline' that is '__inline' or whatever
> when
> > not using gcc.
>
>
