On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:53 PM, David Cantrell <[email protected]> wrote: > [CCing Gabor in case he's not on the list] I am on the list. thanks anyway.
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 02:16:09PM +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote: > >> Looking at the reports it seems there are relatively few reports for Padre. >> >> So my question is, if this is normal or are some smokers skipping >> Padre for some reason? >> In other words, how could I get more reports on more platforms? > > You depend on Wx, which is excluded from my testing because in my > experience it can only be built manually, as it's hard to automate the > ritual circle of goat's blood that's needed. I think the buildability of Alien::wxWidgets and Wx has improved a lot in the past 6 months since I started to look at it. I'd really appreciate if you gave it another try and report to the author or to the wxperl list (or to padre-dev or even to me personally, I'll forward it) any issues you encounter that requires manual intervention. While it has improved, still our biggest issue with Padre distribution is the installation of Wx so I am sure several of the Padre developers will try to help in fixing the Wx related issues if you report them. > So even if I didn't also exclude Padre.* from testing, you still > wouldn't get any test results from me, because of the missing dependency. > Padre.* is excluded from my testing simply to save the time that would be > wasted chasing dependencies for something that's never going to work > anyway because of the missing Wx. > > If you could seperate bits that aren't dependent on threading or Wx out > into other packages and have Padre depend on them, then you would at > least get better testing of those bits. No idea how practical that is > though. I could upload Task::Padre::Prereqs that has the same prereqs as Padre except the threading perl and the Wx related modules but our main trouble is exactly in those areas of Wx and threading so IMHO it won't gain much and you are testing the prereqs anyway. Gabor
