On 10/22/07, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > # from David Golden > # on Sunday 21 October 2007 20:18: > > >Your META.yml says your module needs "Foo::Bar 1.23". Someone doesn't > >have Foo::Bar installed. Your tests fail. Did they fail because > >Foo::Bar was missing? Or because one or more tests failed. > > Did we try and fail to install Foo::Bar? If so, why were we running the > test suite?
I don't know. But that's what CPAN does. Ditto, I think, CPANPLUS. > >All I know conclusively is that your tests failed and that what you > >specified as prerequisites were not satisfied. > > We're losing some information from the prereq-satisfaction stage of > CPAN.pm? > > Perhaps the report should read "UNTESTABLE"? I like that idea -- it would allow (theoretically) some analysis of PASS and UNTESTABLE to find which actual prerequisites cause things to fail on different platforms. Why don't you propose the idea on cpan-testers-discuss and let people kick around the pros/cons and impact on existing tools? David
