On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Martin Evans <martin.ev...@easysoft.com>wrote:
> 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. > There's a debate at the moment on #p5p about whether it's an error to have $Config{cc} and not have the named compiler. If so, every AS perl is "broken". There *is* a point -- it's how well does a distribution that requires a compiler deal with the situation where a compiler doesn't exist. Does it die with a reasonable error to a user? Or does it fail with something unintelligible. It's just a prerequisite like any other. > 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. > I meant the long text from Makefile.PL about running the VCVARS32.bat file and so on. You're being very prescriptive about how to get the compiler set up correctly. I think that's awesome. -- David <davi...@cpan.org>