On Sun, 12 May 2002, Robert wrote: > > Hey Randy, > > I think we're making progress here. > > The smoking script will not test a module if it's prereq's > are not satisfied. So, if Apache::AuthCookieDBI correctly > references prereq modules, and they are not installed (or the > -p -chases down prereq modules- option is not given to the > smoker), then Apache::AuthCookieDBI will not be tested. If > the -p option is given, or in this case, Apache::AuthCookie > is installed, the module will be tested. Hence, the > request/requirement to fill out PREREQ_PM. > > So, there is no consistency problem with CPANPLUS scripts > doing automated testing, IF the PREREQ_PM is complete. > > We there yet?
I think so ... From what you and Autrijus explained, cpansmoke, as it doesn't do an install, would grade packages consistently (in the sense we're talking about), as far as prerequisites being specified, since it effectively tests everything relative to a core Perl install. Unfortunately, I can't easily reach this form of consistency on the systems I use for testing, as I install non-core modules for other purposes. Thus, for example, I have mod_perl installed, and when I test Apache::* modules, I would miss a missing PREREQ_PM for a required mod_perl at the 'perl Makefile.PL' stage. And I don't really want to start going through packages to see which missing PREREQ_PMs slipped passed me, just because I happen to have some required module installed ... So, since *I* can't reasonably offer a fail grade for missing PREREQ_PMs, it seems fair for me to not fail any package on this basis ... This makes my results internally consistent, which unfortunately is inconsistent with cpansmoke's (internally consistent) results, and also inconsistent with those testers who use a working system and report as a FAIL those missing PREREQ_PMs they encounter ... But this is Perl, so we're used to this ... best regards, randy
