On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:51:02PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
A 'FAIL' result doesn't mean "this code is broken". It doesn't even mean
"this code is broken on this version of perl and this OS". It means "it
didn't pass its tests on this particular setup".
That's why in cpXXXan I don't pay any attention to failures at all.
A 'FAIL' result doesn't mean "this code is broken". It doesn't even mean
"this code is broken on this version of perl and this OS". It means "it
didn't pass its tests on this particular setup".
That's why in cpXXXan I don't pay any attention to failures at all.
a FAIL, when considering whether to index a distribution for a particular
cpXXXan?
Given a combination of perl/OS that a dist normally passes on, there are
all kinds of reasons that it might occasionally fail, and I doubt that
an old CPAN.pm is even the most common. But it is one of the easiest to
diagnose if someone is using the test reports properly and actually
looking at the details.
I must take issue with "easiest". I've been looking at cpantesters reportsall kinds of reasons that it might occasionally fail, and I doubt that
an old CPAN.pm is even the most common. But it is one of the easiest to
diagnose if someone is using the test reports properly and actually
looking at the details.
for quite some time as an active maintainer of some commonly-used
distributions, and it's nowhere near easy trying to determine the source of
errors in some reports.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:25:48PM -0400, Daniel Staal wrote:
If you truly need a minimum version of CPAN, declare it. You can set
a version of CPAN in the prereqs like you can set any other module.
No specific CPAN client is needed to install any distribution. However, ifIf you truly need a minimum version of CPAN, declare it. You can set
a version of CPAN in the prereqs like you can set any other module.
configure_requires prereqs are not going to be detected and fulfilled, the
installation will fail.
Incidentally, the answer to one of my original questions "what version of
CPAN.pm is known to not fulfill configure_requires" is 1.94_55 (and lower).
(Thanks, Graham Knop!)
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:23:28AM -0400, David Golden wrote:
It is, however, useful for people wanting to use modules.
Not really. They can't easily differentiate between problems thatIt is, however, useful for people wanting to use modules.
could be fixed if they upgraded their toolchain and problems inherent
to the module itself.
can't tell what the reason for the failure is, I can't know if it's
something in the distribution's code itself, or a (solvable) problem with
the installation system. If I as an author can't interpret the report, how
is a more casual user supposed to tell?
