David Golden wrote:
Some people have Perl without a compiler -- this looks like a Windows
ActiveState Perl setup. Why smoke without a compiler? To show what
happens when distros on CPAN get tested without one. (Which could
happen for normal users unknowingly via dependencies, which is one of
the reasons that Perl without a compiler makes CPAN nearly unusable and
one of the reasons that drove the creationof Strawberry Perl.)
I didn't get the impression this person was doing a single report - he
is 16th on the leader board of test submissions. If the C compiler is
not set up properly (and see below because I did not generate the
compiler error) he could generate thousands of UNKNOWN for any module
that has XS - does not seem any point in that.
In this case, the "UNKNOWN" result is correct (in the new definition of
it). The build failed and tests could not be run, thus the result of
tests is unknown. Your error message is very descriptive -- I think
it's perhaps the best Makefile.PL error message I've ever seen.
That error did not come from me - I think it may have come from
ExtUtils::MakeMaker but I'm not sure.
-- David
Martin
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Martin J. Evans
<martin.ev...@easysoft.com <mailto:martin.ev...@easysoft.com>> wrote:
Perhaps I am misreading
http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2009/01/msg3090019.html
but it looks as if the C compiler is not set up properly. Why would
anyone be smoking and attempting to build XS modules without their C
compiler being set up. May be this is some other issue. Any ideas?
Martin
