Hi David, This is still going on: http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/3354301e-219a-11e5-99ab-9f7de14af301
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 9:59 AM, David Cantrell <da...@cantrell.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:44:14PM -0700, Karen Etheridge wrote: > > > I've been continuing to receive reports (several a day, on average) like > > this: > > > > > http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/5421bfb0-1e88-11e5-b327-3e6ce14af301 > > > > ...where the test failures were clearly caused by unsatisfied > > prerequisites. It is my understanding that this should not result in a > FAIL > > report, but rather NA -- any reasonable attempt to run tests and achieve > a > > PASS should attempt to satisfy prerequisites first. > > Here's the full output from running this against a fresh install of > 5.8.9. It only differs from stock 5.8.9 in the addition of Expect, > CPAN::Reporter, and their pre-reqs: > > perl-5.8.9/bin/cpan Dist::Zilla::Plugin::StaticInstall 2>&1|tee \ > Dist::Zilla::Plugin::StaticInstall.cpan.output > > > http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/private/dist-zilla-plugin-staticinstall.cpan.output > > Note the "CPAN::Reporter: test results were not valid, Prerequisite > missing" line, which is missing from the original report. I don't know > whether that line is only ever spat to STDOUT/ERR or whether things were > subtlely different in this run. If the latter, I can only assume that > something else that I tested shortly before your module was a bit buggy > and despite passing its tests (and hence getting installed) it broke the > toolchain. Sorry about that. > > Absent evidence to the contrary, I'm going to put this down to something > else breaking the toolchain, and you're the one who noticed because > your code is toolchain-ish and so interacted with it. > > -- > David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club" > > On the bright side, if sendmail is tied up routing spam and pointless > uknot posts, it's not waving its arse around saying "root me!" > -- Peter Corlett, in uknot >
