--- David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/30/07, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We also have dependencies on Sub::Uplevel (a notorious source of > build > > problems), > > Excuse me? CPAN::Testers for Sub::Uplevel 0.14: PASS 165 FAIL 0 > > There was a time when Test::Exception had things in build_requires > that should have been in requires <snip>
Yes, you're right. That was a unfair of me. I was rushing off to the pub and wanted to get the email out quickly. I shouldn't have cast aspersions on a great module. The Test::Exception/Sub::Uplevel problem causing false negatives was always a bit frustrating for me and it came out in the last email. I'm sorry if I offended you :( > So, yes, that's a rough and stupid calculation. > > CPAN is a core strength of Perl because it makes developer's lives > easier by not reinventing the wheel. More usage of modules means > more installs and points of dependency failure. The calculation was not intended to be a serious attempt to put forward numbers. It was a serious attempt to show how minor, avoidable failures can quickly become a major headache. > So let's not start a "dependencies are bad" bandwagon Dependences are not bad and I never said that. Dependencies which cause false negatives are bad. Cheers, Ovid -- Buy the book - http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/perlhks/ Perl and CGI - http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/cgi_course/ Personal blog - http://publius-ovidius.livejournal.com/ Tech blog - http://use.perl.org/~Ovid/journal/
