Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer
Jonathan Rockway schrieb: 1) Module authors need to re-release their modules whenever Module::Install is updated. This is the only viable solution. Anybody using Module::Install for their modules should be aware of that. Of course, if the changes between the Module::Install releases don't matter for your specific module, you needn't re-release. (E.g. better XS support and a pure Perl module.) 2) Get M::I into the core of perl, so that everyone has a known-good tested-everywhere version. This is the best idea. CPAN works so well because everyone has it and it's a good piece of software (lately CPANPLUS has gotten rather buggy and I've gone back to regular CPAN!). This is out of the question. It would never be allowed to go into the core. Module::Install has a very different philosophy from other build tools (like Module::Build and ExtUtils::Makemaker): Only the module author installs it. The users get the bundled version. Actually now I see a third resolution: don't use M::I for CPAN modules. CPAN (the software) handles dependency installing, it's standard with perl, good enough. I do like M::I, I just can't think of why it's really necessary for CPAN modules. (For non-CPAN perl packages, though, it's a GREAT idea.) IMHO, it's convenient. Steffen
Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer
Randy W. Sims schrieb: Steffen Mueller wrote: Feedback is welcome, though I'd rather not talk about the way I determine the version number. It works for all known versions of Module::Install. I don't think I like it. It makes me nervous for some reason... For example, who's to say what constitutes a bad version of an installer (actually, this only applies to M::I, since the other installers aren't generally bundled, but I don't mind defending M::I here). In this case, you've declared every version prior to some arbitrary release to be bad. I doubt that is the case. I think there might have been problems with one or two releases, but being an old release is not the same as being a flawed release. There is a particular incompatibility between Module::Install pre-0.61 and the current ActiveState Perl release. (build 817). So yes, if you are on Windows, anything before 0.61 *is* bad! This was discussed in a different thread recently. If we found out that 0.62 had a really dangerous bug, but 0.61 and 0.63 didn't, then we could easily add a hash of known-to-be-bad versions. Incidentially, that includes 0.60 and earlier. :) Steffen
Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer
Hi!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:27:30PM +0200, Steffen Mueller wrote:
we had a discussion about distributions with broken versions of
Module::Install. Using Module::CPANTS::Kwalitee::* as models I wrote a
simple plugin that calculates a Kwalitee metric uses_broken_installer.
Cool!
Maybe we should call it 'uses_broken_bundled_installer' or
'uses_broken_module_install'?
The BrokenInstaller.pm file is attached. It's a straightforward adaption
of what the other metric plugins do.
I only took a short glance (/me is @work ATM), but it looks ok. I'll
take a closer look in the evening.
domm: What do you think? Is this a good metric?
I think it's a good metric, but maybe Module::Install-supports will
disagree :-)
We could also add checks for problems in Makefile.PL/Build.PL...
If so, would you like to
include the plugin in the distribution or do you want me to upload a
separate distribution?
I'd rather include it in MCA.
Thanks a lot!
--
#!/usr/bin/perl http://domm.zsi.at
for(ref bless{},just'another'perl'hacker){s-:+-$-gprint$_.$/}
Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer
Thomas Klausner wrote: I think it's a good metric, but maybe Module::Install-supports will disagree :-) Well, as long as it only picks up *certain* versions, that's probably OK. We could also add checks for problems in Makefile.PL/Build.PL... At the risk of going out on a limb here, maybe something that detects Module::Build::Compat in passthrough mode? Regards, David
Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer
Hi, Thomas Klausner schrieb: On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:27:30PM +0200, Steffen Mueller wrote: we had a discussion about distributions with broken versions of Module::Install. Using Module::CPANTS::Kwalitee::* as models I wrote a simple plugin that calculates a Kwalitee metric uses_broken_installer. Cool! Maybe we should call it 'uses_broken_bundled_installer' or 'uses_broken_module_install'? I don't think so. If a bug in certain Module::Build versions was to be discovered, the resulting broken Makefile.PL's or Build.PL's could also be included in this metric. So neither bundled nor module_install applies in that case. The BrokenInstaller.pm file is attached. It's a straightforward adaption of what the other metric plugins do. I only took a short glance (/me is @work ATM), but it looks ok. I'll take a closer look in the evening. Since http://steffen-mueller.net/mi_old.html is generated using very similar heuristics, the part in analyse() should be fine. I just took ::Files.pm and replaced the obvious pieces with my code. domm: What do you think? Is this a good metric? I think it's a good metric, but maybe Module::Install-supports will disagree :-) I doubt that. It's not aimed at Module::Install or anything. If anybody knows about deficiencies in older M::I releases, it's the Module::Install maintainers! We could also add checks for problems in Makefile.PL/Build.PL... Exactly. That's why I'd like to keep this from being Module::Install specific. Separate metric seem overkill. If so, would you like to include the plugin in the distribution or do you want me to upload a separate distribution? I'd rather include it in MCA. Perfect. Steffen
Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer
* Randy W. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-07-19 00:20]: For example, who's to say what constitutes a bad version of an installer How about the installer maintainer himself? As in the case of M::I… Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer
Steffen Mueller wrote: Hi domm, hi perl.qa, we had a discussion about distributions with broken versions of Module::Install. Using Module::CPANTS::Kwalitee::* as models I wrote a simple plugin that calculates a Kwalitee metric uses_broken_installer. - If the distribution doesn't use Module::Install, it's fine for now. - If it uses a recent Module::Install, that okay, too. - If it uses a version of Module::Install that's known to be broken, it doesn't get the kwalitee point. The BrokenInstaller.pm file is attached. It's a straightforward adaption of what the other metric plugins do. Feedback is welcome, though I'd rather not talk about the way I determine the version number. It works for all known versions of Module::Install. domm: What do you think? Is this a good metric? If so, would you like to include the plugin in the distribution or do you want me to upload a separate distribution? I don't think I like it. It makes me nervous for some reason... For example, who's to say what constitutes a bad version of an installer (actually, this only applies to M::I, since the other installers aren't generally bundled, but I don't mind defending M::I here). In this case, you've declared every version prior to some arbitrary release to be bad. I doubt that is the case. I think there might have been problems with one or two releases, but being an old release is not the same as being a flawed release. Randy.
Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer
I see two resolutions to this problem: 1) Module authors need to re-release their modules whenever Module::Install is updated. This is extremely inconvenient, but not a terrible demand. If other authors are like me, they accumulate small minor changes to their modules, and then release when something important comes along. A new M::I is important and would force us to keep our stable CPAN modules up-to-date with our svn repositories or whatever. That's a good thing ;) , but probably not the right way of going about it. (For the record, all my M::I modules use the latest version, and I went to no special effort to ensure that. So maybe this isn't as hard as it sounds.) (The right way of going about this, BTW, is out of the scope of this e-mail... but I do have some ideas...) 2) Get M::I into the core of perl, so that everyone has a known-good tested-everywhere version. This is the best idea. CPAN works so well because everyone has it and it's a good piece of software (lately CPANPLUS has gotten rather buggy and I've gone back to regular CPAN!). The other solutions (like kwality or whatever it's called) are stopgap measures that don't fix anything. Anyone that knows about the kwality site probably reads this list ;) and knows to update M::I anyway. The other 90% of the modules are one-offs whose authors have better things to do, probably, than re-release their module whenever a point release of some obscure dependency is released :). For the time being, maybe someone just needs to download the broken modules, fix the inc directory, and upload them back to the CPAN ;) That would actually solve the problem. (And introduce many others, but...) Actually now I see a third resolution: don't use M::I for CPAN modules. CPAN (the software) handles dependency installing, it's standard with perl, good enough. I do like M::I, I just can't think of why it's really necessary for CPAN modules. (For non-CPAN perl packages, though, it's a GREAT idea.) Regards, Jonathan Rockway I don't think I like it. It makes me nervous for some reason... For example, who's to say what constitutes a bad version of an installer (actually, this only applies to M::I, since the other installers aren't generally bundled, but I don't mind defending M::I here). In this case, you've declared every version prior to some arbitrary release to be bad. I doubt that is the case. I think there might have been problems with one or two releases, but being an old release is not the same as being a flawed release.
Re: Kwalitee metric: Broken Installer
On Tuesday 18 July 2006 15:57, Jonathan Rockway wrote: 2) Get M::I into the core of perl, so that everyone has a known-good tested-everywhere version. For various values of everyone and everywhere perhaps. Actually now I see a third resolution: don't use M::I for CPAN modules. CPAN (the software) handles dependency installing, it's standard with perl, good enough. I do like M::I, I just can't think of why it's really necessary for CPAN modules. (For non-CPAN perl packages, though, it's a GREAT idea.) That's my preference as well. -- c
