Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

David Landgren wrote: David Cantrell wrote: brian d foy wrote: Seriously though, I would expect things in Win32::* to only work on Windows, things in Linux::* only to work on linux, and so on for many other sections (including Mac::* where I have some modules). Portable code isn't always the g

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 11:30:13AM +0100, Tels wrote: > Problaby just because the last guy running RISC OS has died 4 years ago. > SCNR :-) Well, the list is *slightly* more active than that: http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.riscos Nicholas Clark

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Moin, On Friday 03 February 2006 11:04, David Landgren wrote: > David Cantrell wrote: > > brian d foy wrote: > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Hopefully it will be something like: > >>> $I::don't::bother::to::write::portable::code=1; > >>> ;-) [snip] > > > > I want my code to be more like File

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

David Cantrell wrote: brian d foy wrote: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hopefully it will be something like: $I::don't::bother::to::write::portable::code=1; ;-) Seriously though, I would expect things in Win32::* to only work on Windows, things in Linux::* only to work on linux, and so on for many

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Hi! On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 10:36:47AM -0800, Tyler MacDonald wrote: > OK, speaking of "Kwalitee", I saw cpants for the first time today. > And saw that it claims to update every sunday, but there hasn't been an > update since december 5th. On the one hand I'm having problems with the serve

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

OK, speaking of "Kwalitee", I saw cpants for the first time today. And saw that it claims to update every sunday, but there hasn't been an update since december 5th. I also saw this interesting .pm file that appeared to have an anonymous hash of every tarball in CPAN in it, all on one line.

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 08:59:58AM -0500, David Golden wrote: > > Well, the more generalized problem is how to you signal to an automated > test that you're bailing out as N/A for whatever reason? For Perl > itself, it's easy enough for the smoke test to check if the required > version of Perl

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Moin, On Tuesday 31 January 2006 00:37, demerphq wrote: > On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > demerphq wrote: > > > On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip] > > > > Sorry, i guess my comment was in bad taste. I was just alluding to > observations made in the p5

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

brian d foy wrote: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hopefully it will be something like: $I::don't::bother::to::write::portable::code=1; ;-) Seriously though, I would expect things in Win32::* to only work on Windows, things in Linux::* only to work on linux, and so on for many other sections (includ

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > demerphq wrote: > > On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>So how, then, do I tell the testing system "this module only works on > >>Unix-like filesystems on Unix-like OSes"? > > Hopefully it will be something like: > > $I::

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Adam Kennedy wrote: > > > A testing system should only be sending FAIL reports when it believes it > > > has a platform that is compatible with the needs of the module,

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Moin, On Monday 30 January 2006 14:59, David Golden wrote: > demerphq wrote: > > On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Adam Kennedy wrote: > >>>A testing system should only be sending FAIL reports when it > >>> believes it has a platform that is compatible with the needs of the

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

* demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-30 14:50]: >Hopefully it will be something like: > >$I::don't::bother::to::write::portable::code=1; Yeah, those Win32:: modules are really unportable. It sucks. Wink wink, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

David Cantrell wrote: David Golden wrote: What's a clean, generic mechanism for a distribution to signal "please check this dependency and abort if it's not satisfied"? die("wrong platform, you didn't read the documentation\n") unless( $Config::capabilities{filesystem}{casesensitive} &&

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

On Jan 30, 2006, at 10:04 AM, David Cantrell wrote: [...] for example, on OS X, HFS+ is case-preserving but case- insensitive. UFS is case-sensitive. And FAT16 smashes case. And to make matters even worse (better?) Apple added a case-sensitive mode to HFS+ in 10.4. It's not widely used.

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

David Golden wrote: Well, the more generalized problem is how to you signal to an automated test that you're bailing out as N/A for whatever reason? For Perl itself, it's easy enough for the smoke test to check if the required version of Perl is available -- and the smoke test is smart enough

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

demerphq wrote: On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So how, then, do I tell the testing system "this module only works on Unix-like filesystems on Unix-like OSes"? Hopefully it will be something like: $I::don't::bother::to::write::portable::code=1; My code is as portable as

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

David Cantrell wrote: Adam Kennedy wrote: A testing system should only be sending FAIL reports when it believes it has a platform that is compatible with the needs of the module, but when it tries to install tests fail. So how, then, do I tell the testing system "this module only works on

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

demerphq wrote: On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Adam Kennedy wrote: A testing system should only be sending FAIL reports when it believes it has a platform that is compatible with the needs of the module, but when it tries to install tests fail. So how, then, do I tell

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

On 1/30/06, David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam Kennedy wrote: > > > A testing system should only be sending FAIL reports when it believes it > > has a platform that is compatible with the needs of the module, but when > > it tries to install tests fail. > > So how, then, do I tell the

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Adam Kennedy wrote: A testing system should only be sending FAIL reports when it believes it has a platform that is compatible with the needs of the module, but when it tries to install tests fail. So how, then, do I tell the testing system "this module only works on Unix-like filesystems on

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

And for the record, there are modules with incorrect C concerning the Perl version. For example, some ask a Perl 5.005 while they perfectly work on 5.004, like File::Temp and Test::Reporter. That's how I can send CPAN Testers reports under 5.004: http://testers.cpan.org/show/Net-Pcap.html And t

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Adam Kennedy wrote: > > Module::Install... 1) I'm allergic to this module, 2) I want to keep > > the backward compatibility with Perl 5.004, and Module::Install is not > > compatible with that version. > > Are you absolutely sure about that? It says it wants to be (and perlver > can't pick up anyt

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote: Adam Kennedy wrote: Could you have a look at the COOKBOOK section of the Module::Install docs on CPAN, is that File::HomeDir example sort of what you would need? Module::Install... 1) I'm allergic to this module, 2) I want to keep the backward compatibility w

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Adam Kennedy wrote: > Could you have a look at the COOKBOOK section of the Module::Install > docs on CPAN, is that File::HomeDir example sort of what you would need? Module::Install... 1) I'm allergic to this module, 2) I want to keep the backward compatibility with Perl 5.004, and Module::Instal

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Adam Kennedy wrote: > > (*If* the author fixes the problem. I still can't get my patches for > > Sub::Uplevel high enough in Schwern's queue. > > Have you considered offering to take it over, or just co-maint the > module for one or two releases? He's given away modules before to people > that ha

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Sébastien Aperghis-Tramoni wrote: Adam Kennedy wrote: That said, I'd also like "I need libfoo 1.41" declarations and other similar things, so we can really make the auto-packagers work some hardcore magic. /me takes the Net::Pcap maintainer hat I'd really like to see something like that, th

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Adam Kennedy wrote: > That said, I'd also like "I need libfoo 1.41" declarations and other > similar things, so we can really make the auto-packagers work some > hardcore magic. /me takes the Net::Pcap maintainer hat I'd really like to see something like that, this would allow for a much simpler

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 04:45:51AM +1100, Adam Kennedy wrote: > > I haven't been able to find (although I haven't looked to hard) for a > documented set of result codes. But either DEPFAIL or N/A makes sense. See CPAN::YACSmoke pod. Just before Christmas I completed the TestersGuide pod, which a

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 11:01:06AM -0500, David Golden wrote: > > You need to deal with N/A's down the chain. E.g. I prereq a module that > can't be built in an automated fashion but requires human intervention > or choices or external libraries. If you don't have it and the > automated buil

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-28 18:45]: >My point is really that CPAN Testers CAN be fixed, it's merely a >case of how much effort is involved and finding someone that >cares enough to fix it. I wasn’t saying anything to the contrary; just saying that that is where the effort should

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Changing these HTTP like codes, might okay for an internal representation, but would require ALOT of work to change several CPAN modules and ensure all the testers upgraded. There is also the fact that all existing reports are in the system and not going to change. Although I may have misunderstoo

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

(*If* the author fixes the problem. I still can't get my patches for Sub::Uplevel high enough in Schwern's queue. Have you considered offering to take it over, or just co-maint the module for one or two releases? He's given away modules before to people that have more time to give them love t

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

A. Pagaltzis wrote: * Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-28 17:15]: So do have any additional specific objections, or are we up to "grumble, just fucking do it then, but I won't care" :) Actually, I like the effort, even if I share some of the concerns of the people who ridicule it. But

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-28 17:15]: >So do have any additional specific objections, or are we up to >"grumble, just fucking do it then, but I won't care" :) Actually, I like the effort, even if I share some of the concerns of the people who ridicule it. But it won’t motivate *me

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

A. Pagaltzis wrote: * Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-28 16:20]: More to the point, it should lead people to spend more time looking into WHY their module isn't installing, and help us nail down the critical modules in the CPAN toolchain that have problems. Sounds to me like a case o

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Adam Kennedy wrote: Whether or not that is a transient thing that lasts for a week, or a serious and ongoing problem, I think it's still worth it. But that would require regular scanning -- otherwise I might get the point one week and then a dependency might upgrade in a way that is borked.

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-28 16:20]: >More to the point, it should lead people to spend more time >looking into WHY their module isn't installing, and help us nail >down the critical modules in the CPAN toolchain that have >problems. Sounds to me like a case of the “it will work

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Moin, On Saturday 28 January 2006 15:54, David Golden wrote: > Adam Kennedy wrote: > > Likewise, if your module installs all the way from a vanilla > > installation and all it dependencies go on cleanly, then I think > > that's well and truly worthy of a point. > > > > Something like a clean_insta

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Knocking off points for fails, however, might be due to things that are completely idiosyncratic. For example, anyone whose module depended on a test module that used Test::Builder::Tester when Test::Builder changed and broke it could get dinged. Does this really tell us anything about actu

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Nicholas Clark wrote: On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 11:50:49PM -0800, chromatic wrote: Let me save you the trouble of writing it to find the biggest problem right now: fairly broken automated testing systems that can't even *run* the Build.PL file *or* the compatibility Makefile.PL yet send FAIL rep

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Adam Kennedy wrote: Likewise, if your module installs all the way from a vanilla installation and all it dependencies go on cleanly, then I think that's well and truly worthy of a point. Something like a clean_install metric. If there are any FAIL entries in CPAN Testers against the current v

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 11:50:49PM -0800, chromatic wrote: > Let me save you the trouble of writing it to find the biggest problem right > now: fairly broken automated testing systems that can't even *run* the > Build.PL file *or* the compatibility Makefile.PL yet send FAIL reports > anyway. I

Re: Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

On Friday 27 January 2006 23:40, Adam Kennedy wrote: > Something like a clean_install metric. If there are any FAIL entries in > CPAN Testers against the current version of your module, you lose a point. > The PITA-based (what I'm thinking of calling) Vanilla Testers system is > intended for a si

Kwalitee in your dependencies (was CPAN Upload: etc etc)

Yes, CPAN can be a pain; however (kw|qu)alit(ee|y) is not meant to be a metrics of how easy to install a module is, but rather of whether it is possible to build something strong upon it, and to do so quickly and easily. (Or am I mistaken?) I disagree. A lot of the kwalitee metrics support best