CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
Some modules' tarballs don't set the x bit on directories, which makes it impossible for a non-root user to run Makefile.PL or the module's tests. The usual cause is that the author suffers from Windows, and the fix is to use '--mode 755' when creating the tarball. I think it would be a good idea for CPANTS to check that directories have the x bits set. This would either be a new metric, or could be rolled into 'extracts_nicely', or could be combined with 'no_symlinks' and called 'uses_portable_filesystem_features' or something similar. -- David Cantrell
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
* David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-26 16:45]: I think it would be a good idea for CPANTS to check that directories have the x bits set. ++ This would either be a new metric +=0 or could be rolled into 'extracts_nicely' ++ or could be combined with 'no_symlinks' and called 'uses_portable_filesystem_features' or something similar. -- It doesn’t have to do with filesystem features, it has to do with OS permission semantics. You can mount FAT32 and NTFS in unixoid systems and likewise mount ext2/3 in Windows, and a sufficiently abled tool could then correctly extract archives preserving non- portable features, but the permission semantics don’t carry over correctly anyway because the respective kernels are not able to convey them. The `extracts_nicely` metric is the right place for this, IMO. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
On 5/26/07, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some modules' tarballs don't set the x bit on directories, which makes it impossible for a non-root user to run Makefile.PL or the module's tests. The usual cause is that the author suffers from Windows, and the fix is to use '--mode 755' when creating the tarball. Can you explain this please? Why would the lack of a set x bit on a directory prevent you from doing perl Makefile.PL make make test Is this simply so you dont have to type 'perl'? cheers Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e /just|another|perl|hacker/
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
* demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-26 17:35]: Can you explain this please? Why would the lack of a set x bit on a directory prevent you from doing perl Makefile.PL make make test Yes. Is this simply so you dont have to type 'perl'? No. The x bit on a directory determines whether you can resolve paths that cross it. ~ $ cd Proc-Fork ~/Proc-Fork $ chmod -x lib ~/Proc-Fork $ perl Build.PL Can't find file lib/Proc/Fork.pm to determine version at \ /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/Module/Build/Base.pm line 937. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
On 5/26/07, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-26 17:35]: Can you explain this please? Why would the lack of a set x bit on a directory prevent you from doing perl Makefile.PL make make test Yes. Im assuming this means Yes it prevents this (Excessive terseness)-- Is this simply so you dont have to type 'perl'? No. The x bit on a directory determines whether you can resolve paths that cross it. ~ $ cd Proc-Fork ~/Proc-Fork $ chmod -x lib ~/Proc-Fork $ perl Build.PL Can't find file lib/Proc/Fork.pm to determine version at \ /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/Module/Build/Base.pm line 937. Ok. Thanks. BTW, id say that if this is an issue for Unix users then they should file a bug with the people that wrote their decompression software and/or installer software. I dont see it as being my problem as a Win32 developer at all. Im sympathetic to the annoyance it causes but to me its like opening a book written in a language you dont read and complaining that it isnt written in one you do. I mean if Win32 doesnt even support this concept how is it my problem what your software does when unpacking? Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e /just|another|perl|hacker/
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
On 26 May 2007, at 18:16, demerphq wrote: I dont see it as being my problem as a Win32 developer at all. Im sympathetic to the annoyance it causes but to me its like opening a book written in a language you dont read and complaining that it isnt written in one you do. I mean if Win32 doesnt even support this concept how is it my problem what your software does when unpacking? Lack of attention to detail? Supposed to work on any platform but doesn't? As a Win32 developer you have to appreciate that quite a lot of the Perl stuff you use (including Perl itself possibly) wouldn't exist if Win32 were the only OS in the World. -- Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
On 5/26/07, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-26 19:20]: BTW, id say that if this is an issue for Unix users then they should file a bug with the people that wrote their decompression software and/or installer software. It's the decompression software's fault that it correctly preserves the data in the archive when decompressing?! Are you serious? Sorry, but it is *the _compression_ software's* bug. Fine, then what do i do about it? File a bug with Archive::Tar (maintained by a non windows programmer)? I dont see it as being my problem as a Win32 developer at all. Im sympathetic to the annoyance it causes but to me its like opening a book written in a language you dont read and complaining that it isnt written in one you do. I mean if Win32 doesnt even support this concept how is it my problem what your software does when unpacking? Tarballs are a Unix concept and use Unix permission semantics. Win32 developers creating tarballs are writing books in a language they don't speak. Then they get annoyed that native (or fluid) speakers of the language complain when their books are full of mistakes. (What a silly metaphor… but anyway.) Ok fair enough. I sit corrected. Sorry, you're wrong. I'm sorry if the silly Unix people are grating on your nerves, but they're right. Ok im wrong, and yes comments like suffering from windows do grate on my nerves. Maybe ill just upload my files in zip format from now on only, then its not my problem anymore right? Would that be better? Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e /just|another|perl|hacker/
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
On 26 May 2007, at 18:45, demerphq wrote: Maybe ill just upload my files in zip format from now on only, then its not my problem anymore right? Would that be better? That would be fine. You know - you've kind of tickled a raw nerve here. One of the very few reasons I maintain a Windows box here and endure the pain (for me - subjective I know) that goes with it is so I can test my modules against Win32. And the only reason I bang my head off Win32 related problems is because I have a deeply held conviction that my stuff should - if possible - work on any platform Perl supports. I honestly don't think - given the hassle that supporting Win32 is for so many people who otherwise wouldn't touch it - that you have much room to bitch about a Unix specific problem. -- Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
On 5/26/07, Andy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 May 2007, at 18:45, demerphq wrote: Maybe ill just upload my files in zip format from now on only, then its not my problem anymore right? Would that be better? That would be fine. You know - you've kind of tickled a raw nerve here. did you all wake up on the wrong side ? Could you please calm down? Gabor
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
On 5/26/07, Andy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 May 2007, at 18:45, demerphq wrote: Maybe ill just upload my files in zip format from now on only, then its not my problem anymore right? Would that be better? That would be fine. Fine then. The fact that ExtUtils make dist automatically produces a .tar.gz and the fact that Archive::Tar does not do the right thing is not exactly my fault however. You know - you've kind of tickled a raw nerve here. As did David in his original post for me. One of the very few reasons I maintain a Windows box here and endure the pain (for me - subjective I know) that goes with it is so I can test my modules against Win32. And the only reason I bang my head off Win32 related problems is because I have a deeply held conviction that my stuff should - if possible - work on any platform Perl supports. Yes i agree with this as well. I go to similar lengths to ensure my code works on *nix. And yes i appreciate your efforts, although to the best of my knowledge ive never directly benefitted from them. I honestly don't think - given the hassle that supporting Win32 is for so many people who otherwise wouldn't touch it - that you have much room to bitch about a Unix specific problem. I was out of line in how i put things. I apologise. yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e /just|another|perl|hacker/
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
On 26 May 2007, at 19:03, Gabor Szabo wrote: did you all wake up on the wrong side ? Could you please calm down? I can confirm that I'm spectacularly calm :) -- Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
testing on other platforms
If you have already started to argue about Windows vs Unix issues is there a way - besides uploading to CPAN and waiting for the CPAN testers to test my modules on platforms I don't have? [*] Is there some publicly available Solaris/HP-UX/etc (see full list on this page http://www.cpan.org/ports/index.html ) set of servers where one could test his modules? Maybe even setup CPAN smoking? Gabor [*] and actually even the CPAN testers provide only a relatively small set of platforms.
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
On 26 May 2007, at 19:06, demerphq wrote: I was out of line in how i put things. I apologise. Thanks Yves. I /still/ think it's pretty cool that basically we're all friends :) -- Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
Re: testing on other platforms
On 26 May 2007, at 19:08, Gabor Szabo wrote: Is there some publicly available Solaris/HP-UX/etc (see full list on this page http://www.cpan.org/ports/index.html ) set of servers where one could test his modules? There's the HP Testdrive thing - and there may be similar things for other platforms. I can give you an account on a Linux box if it's useful? -- Andy Armstrong, hexten.net
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
# from demerphq # on Saturday 26 May 2007 10:45 am: Sorry, but it is *the _compression_ software's* bug. Fine, then what do i do about it? File a bug with Archive::Tar (maintained by a non windows programmer)? This should be properly handled by the dist action of any sufficiently modern Module::Build or Module::Install or ExtUtils::MakeMaker. If it isn't, that's where the bug is. --Eric -- Atavism n: The recurrence of any peculiarity or disease of an ancestor in a subsequent generation, usually due to genetic recombination. --- http://scratchcomputing.com ---
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
* Andy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-26 19:50]: One of the very few reasons I maintain a Windows box here and endure the pain (for me - subjective I know) that goes with it is so I can test my modules against Win32. So do I. And yeah, I find it painful too. But it’s not open for debate. Btw, if any people with strong Win32 skills can help me stop Proc::Fork from “segfaulting” on Windows, I’d appreciate it. I tried a whole bunch of things but ran out of ideas and it’s still broken. I asked around but no one seemed to know any better. * demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-05-26 20:10]: Fine then. The fact that ExtUtils make dist automatically produces a .tar.gz and the fact that Archive::Tar does not do the right thing is not exactly my fault however. No – *but* it does affect users that are interested in such brokenly packaged modules, so deducting Kwalitee is the correct thing to do IMO. Even if MakeMaker or Archive::Tar or whatever it is that’s broken were fixed, not every author uses the same tools, and someone might decide to use something different without knowing it’s broken. Again then it’s the author who needs to fix his distro, even though he couldn’t know that the tool he used was broken and isn’t to blame for that. So again – having this check in the metrics would serve a useful purpose. I’m not singling out Win32 people, btw. If a similar error was likely to be a Unix-based author’s gaffe, I’d still advocate a check. The collective goal is to make things that work as painlessly as possible for as many people as possible. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: CPANTS: suggestion for a new metric
On Sat, 26 May 2007 20:06:18 +0200, demerphq [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On 5/26/07, Andy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 May 2007, at 18:45, demerphq wrote: Maybe ill just upload my files in zip format from now on only, then its not my problem anymore right? Would that be better? That would be fine. Fine then. You do not have to change anything, Yves. Your tarballs were all fine as far as I know. Do not switch to zip format, please, without a reason. While ZIP has several significant advantages over TAR.GZ, it is inferior in compression metrics. CPAN is not fond of seeing zip files because they usually are 10-30 percent bigger. The fact that ExtUtils make dist automatically produces a .tar.gz and the fact that Archive::Tar does not do the right thing is not exactly my fault however. AFAIK it is not Archive::Tar either. I have not found out which compression software packages do it right and which do it wrong. I have communicated with several authors about it but being Windows users, they do not know it either. On new metrics: I agree with the OP that software packaged with absurd permission bits offends kwality. But everybody should know that PAUSE cannot index these beasts anyway and sends mail to the authors that it cannot read the contents of the distro and that they need to make a new upload when they want to be indexed. -- andreas
