On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 07:30:48PM +0100, Barbie wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 01:23:39PM -0400, David Golden wrote: > > I get your point about the painful upgrade cycle, but the control > > point is CPAN/CPANPLUS. My view is that tools should follow whatever > > they do. Since CPAN supports bz2, CPAN::Reporter::Smoker should > > include those files. If CPANPLUS does not, then YACSmoke et al. > > should skip them. If they add new archive formats, we should follow > > suit. > > Perhaps now is a good time to decide a definitive list of archive > formats and extensions that we will support. For the most part those > that use 'make dist' will generate .tar.gz. I'm assuming that the other > formats are generated by scripts written by authors themselves, if not > what are the tools people use and the associated extensions? > > > Arguably, CPAN Testers should include the union of what CPAN & > > CPANPLUS support, as we're trying to show what a "real user" would > > experience trying to install a module. > > > > The other option is to include only what PAUSE would index, but I'm in > > favor of testing more, not less. > > Agreed. However, we should try to encourage recognised archives and > extensions. I have been doing this for several years, and those authors > who do upload oddball packages have usually done so accidentally. To > begin with many authors were unaware that there was even 'make dist'! >
As I was wandering home I was pondering this and the regex that Dave suggested. Perhaps we can have a module under the CPAN::Testers:: namespace. CPAN::Testers::Testable ? that exports a function 'testable' that takes a CPAN distribution and returns true or false if it is .. er .. testable >:) One place and the other tools can use it. Oh well. -- Chris Williams aka BinGOs PGP ID 0x4658671F http://www.gumbynet.org.uk ==========================
pgpMLreUkFBqH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
