On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Tim Bunce <tim.bu...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 03:29:11PM +0200, rosenfield.alb...@gmail.com wrote: >> > Where do you get the 70%/30% ratio from? >> >> Uploaded a package to CPAN with >> - a test that fails when DBI is not installed, and >> - a Build.PL which does not indicate that DBI is a requirement (even >> though it is). > > And then you counted pass/fail stats that largely come from automated > smoke testers
I did. > on virtual machines that have their modules removed > after each run. Sounds very likely. >> > I'd like to see details of the specific underlying problems that cause >> > build failures with the current release. Ideally with some indication of >> > which are the most frequent. >> >> You would be missing the point. >> >> (The point being not to pour lots of work into making the C version >> work everywhere, but to make it just *possible* to install only the >> PurePerl version on the <1% of systems where the C version cannot be >> made to work or other reasons motivate the use of the PurePerl >> version.) > > As I said before, I'll happily take a patch to Makefile.PL that detects > the lack of a C compiler and then alters %opts so WriteMakefile() writes > a Makefile that won't try to compile DBI.xs etc etc. But you would not be willing to make the PurePerl version of DBI separately available. I wonder why, as the latter seems like a much simpler and resilient approach. Anyway, thanks a lot for your input.
