Sorry, that previous post sounded way to agressive, this is probably
because I'm not english speaker (Worst in my class and proud of it) and
my "diplomatic english" suffers from this shortcoming. This is
aggravated by my try to cut back on smilies lately. Again sorry for
that. I just tried to explain a few points of mine, that I thought might
have been misunderstood.
David Golden schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Marc Lucksch <p...@marc-s.de> wrote:
And what about the optional Test::NoWarnings?
If it isn't in build_requires, I get bad kwalitee, if its there, the module
will be installed without being really needed. If I hide it with trickery
from being detected, I will fail the *uses_test_nowarnings*.
Kwalitee should serve the author. The author should not serve
Kwalitee. (c.f pod testing and the reason xt was established as a
standard)
Yes, but I kind of want to deliver the best module I can produce and
Kwalitee is at least *a* way to improve my module.
The only modules required for the build process (without make test) are
ExtUtils::MakeMaker, Module::Install and Module::Build.
Not always. You can have Foo.PL files that are run during make/Build
and that require any module you want.
True, but who does that?
Usually, discussion seems to happen on the module-build mailing list,
but last year the QA Hackathon seemed to be the place to debate
extensions like the one you mentioned. There was some consideration
last year of breaking out build/test/install requires further but
there was no consensus for it. One of the issues is that it
introduces yet another round of CPAN/CPANPLUS upgrades, so in your
example, you'd need to have a "configure_requires" that lists a newer
CPAN/CPANPLUS.
Do CPAN/CPANPLUS die on entries of META.yml they don't know about? They
could should ignore it since most are not needed anyway, except
test_requires.
The discussion focused on breaking out "build" vs "test" phase
requirements, not xt stuff. Thus, CPAN/CPANPLUS would need to know
about test requirements for tests to pass.
I don't really see a problem in people updating their CPAN or CPANPLUS.
That's right, you don't. But others do. You seem to think that
volunteers should patch CPAN, CPANPLUS, Module::Build,
ExtUtils::MakeMaker and Module::Install, plus all the tools that
utilize META.yml for analysis today and that users should upgrade
those tools universally so that you can get a point of Kwalitee.
That is not what I meant, I just think it would be logical to have them.
That's absurd. The Kwalitee analyzer shouldn't look in xt. Period.
For this, yes.
But before anyone goes fixing things, for uses_test_pod and
uses_test_pod_coverage it has to look at 'xt'
Look -- I'm not trying to bash the idea of splitting build/test
requires in META.yml. I'm actually in favor of it in the abstract.
But the challenges in doing so across the Perl toolchain and ecosystem
are not trivial. The best case for it I heard came from the Debian
packagers, I think, and as I said, in Oslo, a group a very smart,
opinionated people talked it through and couldn't come to a consensus
on a path forward and didn't seem to think it was a priority relative
to other things.
Ok if this has been given some sort and no solution was found, the idea
I had to solve this won't hold up much :(
I'd rather see energy directed to cleaning up some of the Kwalitee
metrics that are sub-optimal.
This is also in my opinion the best short-term solution.
But for a long term solution, kwalitee related or not, this should be
looked at. (Not now though :) )
Marc "Maluku" Lucksch
