That sounds quite reasonable to me.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Kenichi Ishigaki
wrote:
> Here's a summary of the minicpan test:
>
> Total number of distributions as of testing: 35806
>
> - Has explicit "dynamic_config: 1" in META: 8606 (24.04%)
> - runtime prereq
Here's a summary of the minicpan test:
Total number of distributions as of testing: 35806
- Has explicit "dynamic_config: 1" in META: 8606 (24.04%)
- runtime prereq fails: 1953 (5.45%)
- build/test prereq fails: 1496 (4.18%)
- Has explicit "dynamic_config: 0" in META: 14906 (41.63%)
-
Thanks, David. Fixed in the master (*), though I haven't deployed it
yet. I'll test it with minicpan first to see how big the impact is.
https://github.com/cpants/Module-CPANTS-Analyse/commit/c3dea59f184983505458b74369b76dce7793f069
2016-06-07 1:20 GMT+09:00 Karen Etheridge :
Yes, BUT -- for the purposes of kwalitee checks it might be reasonable to
make the prereq_matches_use test more harsh if the flag is omitted
entirely. Otherwise, this kwalitee test will not get to scan many
distributions at all.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:16 AM, David Golden wrote:
Hi, Kenichi.
There's a subtle possible bug. A missing "dynamic_config" field must be
considered true. The field is required for META.json (version 2), but
META.yml (version 1.4) might omit it.
David
On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Kenichi Ishigaki
wrote:
> Thanks for
Thanks for the input. Fixed CPANTS analyzer (*) and started
regenerating database.
*
https://github.com/cpants/www-cpants/commit/2cfff74754f202915e506332529f8ec43226c2db
Kenichi
2016-06-07 0:30 GMT+09:00 David Golden :
> Which Kwalitee test?
>
> Generally, as author of OSPrereqs
Which Kwalitee test?
Generally, as author of OSPrereqs and curator of the CPAN::Meta::Spec, my
opinion is that any tool that draws conclusions about prerequisites in
META.yml/json is doing it wrong unless the "dynamic_prereqs" field in META
is *present* and *false*. (Note that OSPrereqs sets it