On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 09:43:01AM +0200, Dmitry Karasik wrote:
> > Both CPAN and CPANPLUS manipulate PERL5LIB for non-install testing.
> >
> > So you may actually be better off just avoiding automated testing entirely:
> >
> > exit if $ENV{AUTOMATED_TESTING}
>
> That's an overkill, I think. I also received lots of PASS, which means that
> automated testing works more ofthen than not. I only started receiving fails
> generated by YACSmoke, and by YACSmoke only. I suppose there are other testing
> frameworks, that do their jobs fine, and of course I'm interested in their
> test
> output.
> Actually what I think you will find is that these are reports from CPANPLUS. AFAIK, the only people currently testing exclusively with CPANPLUS are myself and Vincent Pit. As Dave, I believe, pointed out, this the PERL5LIB manipulation is the same for both CPAN and CPANPLUS. Why you don't see FAILs from CPAN::Reporter based smokers is beyond me. > Yes, me too. However I'm fairly sure that rewriting Prima Makefile.PL in order > to use blib is a large task. Also, if the sole reason to do that is to be > compatible with YACSmoke, and no real productivity gain, I don't know, I guess > it would be much more reasonable to fix YACSmoke to do the proper thing > instead. After all, are modules for testers, or testers for modules? CPANPLUS::YACSmoke / CPANPLUS::Dist::YACSmoke is not the 'bad guy'. Both modules only hook into the CPANPLUS API in order to enhance the existing functionality provided by that module. If there is anywhere that needs fixing it would be with CPANPLUS. Cheers, -- Chris Williams aka BinGOs PGP ID 0x4658671F http://www.gumbynet.org.uk ==========================
pgpiyGErfrVfr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
