Why would you do that? If the module you're installing fails its
tests, you should file a bug report. What kind of error? IME you
shouldn't ever want to or need to force install a module. This should
be a *colossal* red flag to you.
...
/joel
It is very possible that the tests fail because the tests are wrong, not
the module. I use a Perl that does not have fork emulation on Windows,
partly for performance. Many tests assume fork, even where the modules
they are testing do not depend on it. Yes, these modules should be
reported, but you don't need to wait for a new release, nor is the
module necessarily compromised. Authors cannot always test on a wide
range of platforms. I find a good few modules fail tests for
system/platform reasons rather than because of bugs in the code.
Modules I know fail on Windows without fork but generally don't care
include: DBD::mysql, Test::NoWarnings, WWW::Mechanize,
HTTP::Server::Simple, Cache::Cache, and DBD::SQLite. Most of these have
tests that assume fork. Some get caught by file system differences and
permissions differences.
You might have a wider concern if you are using a "standard" build (if
such a thing exists) but it is at least sometimes justifiable to look
through the tests that fail and make a judgment call.
--S
--
Stuart Watt
ARM Product Developer
Information Balance
_______________________________________________
List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk
Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst
Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk/
Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
