On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 01:57:44PM -0500, Randy Kobes wrote: > On Fri, 10 May 2002, Automated Perl Test Account wrote: > > This is an error report generated automatically by CPANPLUS. > > Below is the error stack during 'make test': > > PERL_DL_NONLAZY=1 /usr/bin/perl -Iblib/arch -Iblib/lib > > -I/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1/i386-linux -I/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.1 > > test.pl 1..1 Can't locate Apache/AuthCookie.pm in @INC > [ ... ] > Although the existence of required modules can be checked for > within Makefile.PL with the use of PREREQ_PM, not everyone uses > this, or some do it in different ways, so it seems extreme to > give this a failure based on Apache::AuthCookie not being > previously installed.
Yes, I agree a FAIL seems a little bit extreme. However, as PREREQ_PM is the de facto way to specify dependencies, it would also be desirable to notice the author, perhaps with a more encouraging message, e.g. "hey, it looks like a PREREQ_PM would be nice. why not do that?". IIRC, that was also one of Michael Schwern's original ideas in CPANTS. > Perhaps CPANPLUS should be configured to automatically send > only PASS reports, with the other grades needing human > inspection before being sent? CPANPLUS currently only send FAIL reports that failed during the 'make test' stage -- i.e. when the Makefile.PL thinks it's okay to install this module, and after 'make' successfully executed without problems. I think it's safe to say that, if the module has entered that stage, it's unlikely that a 'make test' error would be a false-negative. I'll try to find volunteers to hack the CPANPLUS::Internals::Report to add the aforementioned "Can't locate" error detection, and methinks it will be included in 0.04. But whether if it warrants a FAIL is open to debate. Any thoughts? Thanks, /Autrijus/
msg33288/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
