1) We can rather easily see if a compiler exists or not, but
I think it too much to test if the compiler has some feature
or not. And, as DBI we require also requires a working compiler,
(false) unknown is not so bad (why do they have DBI when they
don't have a compiler? - probably they installed it via other
package mananger etc, but we can't be sure).

2) The issue is reproducable (when you give a smaller value
to busy_timeout(), or a larger value to sleep() ). I'll look
at it further.

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:49:17 +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:

Even though there's nothing critical that requires a release of
DBD::SQLite from the sqlite.org recommendation point of view, we've
now got a fair bit of extra features, so I'd like to start thinking
about the next prod release.
From the CPAN Testers side, there's two issues we need to chase down and fix.
The first is a false unknown on some platforms with bad C compiler
setups or missing C compiler setups.


I'd like to see this detected at Makefile.PL-time and converted to a NA result.

The second is the ongoing problem with warnings in t/08_busy.t

We need to decide if this is something we should fix (and if so
someone needs to chase down the CPAN Testers and see if you can get
access to systems, or otherwise replicate the problem) or if we should
just remove the Test::NoWarnings usage in that test script and allow
the warning to stand.

Otherwise, the latest dev release looks fine and I think we're pretty
close to being ready to release (pending a code review on all the new
contributions by everyone)

Adam K

DBD-SQLite mailing list

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 2 of 3 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupdbd-sqlite @
postedAug 14, '09 at 2:49a
activeAug 14, '09 at 7:47a

2 users in discussion

Adam Kennedy: 2 posts Kenichi Ishigaki: 1 post



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase