On Wednesday 03 September 2008 10:38:16 Eric Wilhelm wrote: > If I see two reports about canned beets, I'm likely to just give up. > > So, we all agree that testing is good, but please... test the *code*? > > "The old version of the installer is broken"? So what?
The question is whether CPAN Testers tests if a user can *install* a distribution on a given machine, or whether it tests if *tests pass* on a given machine. From the second draft of the CPAN Testers FAQ: If you get a fatal error during the build process (C<perl Makefile.PL> or C<make>) you should grade the distribution as "fail", too. The only failures that should not be reported with B<fail> are those resulting from unfulfilled dependencies. Some modules require that other modules be installed in order to function. Some modules require that you have certain software on your system - the DBD modules are the clearest example of this. If DBD::MySQL fails because you don't have MySQL installed, that's not the module's fault. Actually, that depends on I<how> it fails. If it complains during C<perl Makefile.PL> that a dependency is unfulfilled, then the module distribution is behaving properly. You should not report any result. *** Your system does not meet the requirements that the module distribution laid out, and is therefore not a valid testing platform right now. *** You may choose to satisfy the dependency by installing whatever the module asked for. If you do that, start the installation over. (emphasis mine) -- http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2002/07/msg46794.html I'm not going to hold anyone in particular to the draft of a FAQ written six years ago, but I've operated under the assumption that this was still the goal of CPAN Testers. Sadly, beetometer++. -- c
