SJS wrote: > begin quoting James G. Sack (jim) as of Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 09:36:50PM > -0800: > [snip] >> cpan will resolve dependencies, sometimes a lot of them it seems, and >> works quite well most of the time. If there are problems, you sometimes >> have to fetch a tarball and do the make and install by hand -- but >> that's somewhat rare (YMMV). > > Hm, the last few times I've played with CPAN, it's had to do this, > and then eventually croaked with incomprehensible error messages > while trying to compile some dependency. > > (This has been on Debian etch systems. Don't have a RedHat system to > try it out on.) > > How stable is CPAN normally? Do most folks find it uber-robust, or just > reasonably stable?
My impression is that it has a very stable track record for _most_ of its content (? >=80% ). But there are a bunch of esoteric packages that are a source of some problems, because they don't get as much testing (I suppose). In times past, a lot of people have used nice words in reference to CPAN. Can't really say whether I notice any trends, since I haven't been doing much perl stuff for a couple of years. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
