Adam Kennedy wrote:
Rather than do any additional exploding, I'd like to propose the
additional kwalitee test has_changes. I've noticed that a percentage
(5-10%) of dists don't have a changes file, so it can be hard to know
whether it's worth upgrading, or more importantly which version to add
On 9/15/05, Christopher H. Laco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would this look for Change OR ChangeLog?
Both seem to be popular on CPAN.
And some people put their changelog in the README.
Gabor
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
* Christopher H. Laco [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-15T08:23:57]
Would this look for Change OR ChangeLog?
Both seem to be popular on CPAN.
...and some modules have a HISTORY or CHANGES section of POD, and DBI
has DBI::Changes.
Though, as with pod and pod coverage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Thursday 15 September 2005 00:42, Peter Kay wrote:
David Golden wrote:
Probably could be done with a Build.PL that pulls the full module
list then constructs a massive requires hash. Unless CPANTS scans
for dependencies, in which case you'd
On 9/15/05, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I was downloading the newest version of Devel::Cover this morning, I
pondered on the concept of 1 Kwalitee point for coverage = 80%, and
another for 100%, and how absolutely impossible it would be to set out
to establish these points for
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 16:00 +0200, David Landgren wrote:
As I was downloading the newest version of Devel::Cover this morning, I
pondered on the concept of 1 Kwalitee point for coverage = 80%, and
another for 100%, and how absolutely impossible it would be to set out
to establish these
I'm not sure this is the right place to ask, but I'm at the end of my
rope here.
I've been working with the ExtUtils::ModuleMaker author with some
beta-testing of new releases.
(part of `uname -a`)
FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE
( relevant perl -v )
This is perl, v5.6.1 built for i386-freebsd
I've
Ricardo SIGNES wrote:
* Christopher H. Laco [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-15T08:23:57]
Would this look for Change OR ChangeLog?
Both seem to be popular on CPAN.
...and some modules have a HISTORY or CHANGES section of POD, and DBI
has DBI::Changes.
Good point. Modules created with
James E Keenan wrote:
Comrade Burnout wrote:
I'm not sure this is the right place to ask, but I'm at the end of my
rope here.
perl Makefile.pl
make
make test VERBOSE=1
Did you include 'make' between 'perl Makefile.PL' and 'make test'?
yes, i did. i just omitted it in my distracted
Comrade Burnout wrote:
James E Keenan wrote:
Comrade Burnout wrote:
I'm not sure this is the right place to ask, but I'm at the end of my
rope here.
perl Makefile.pl
make
make test VERBOSE=1
Did you include 'make' between 'perl Makefile.PL' and 'make test'?
yes, i did. i
Comrade Burnout wrote:
James E Keenan wrote:
And, again, to rule out obvious problems ...
1. When you ran 'make', did you get output that looks more or less
like this:
FWIW, here's the full output of make ...
[ burnt ] :: make
cp lib/ExtUtils/ModuleMaker/StandardText.pm
James E Keenan wrote:
[[[ snip ]]]
[snip]
Let me point out one other anomaly which may not be the source of the
problem. In the following line of output 'make' is using the perl
executable in /usr/bin
/usr/bin/perl -MExtUtils::MY -e MY-fixin(shift)
blib/script/modulemaker
Manifying
I'm trying to figure out why the coverage reports I'm getting from
Devel::Cover (well, cover...) aren't recognizing the effects of most of my
testing. A simple example is one module for which Devel::Cover doesn't
record any subroutine coverage, yet I have tests for each of the subroutines
that run
13 matches
Mail list logo
