Hi!
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 10:09:04PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Something I'd be curious about:
Modules with lower case names which aren't pragmas.
(although how you determine this is hard)
Well, here's a list of lowercase dist on CPAN (238 dists). Quite a lot of
those are in fact
At 23:20 +0200 10/17/03, Thomas Klausner wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 10:09:04PM +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
Something I'd be curious about:
Modules with lower case names which aren't pragmas.
(although how you determine this is hard)
Well, here's a list of lowercase dist on CPAN (238
Hi!
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:42:21PM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Thomas Klausner wrote in perl.qa :
Well, here's a list of lowercase dist on CPAN (238 dists). Quite a lot of
those are in fact real distributions (eg. perl, parrot). In fact I think
that perl itself shouldn't be
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 01:14:44PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
Of course, if you have a well-written name/synopsis/author info,
I guess this is enough. But now we've just shifted the problem.
Well when I initially thought about it I was answering the needs of
someone who wanted to know:
Hi!
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:57:34AM -0700, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:28:29AM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
* contains files:
* Makefile.PL or Build.PL or configure
configure?
there are currently 4 dists on CPAN that only include a configure script
Hi!
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 07:46:02PM +0200, Tels wrote:
* POD/Code ratio (what would be a good measurement?)
No. Some _very_ complex code takes little documentation like:
Agreed.
Probably something like:
*.pm file has more than 1000 lines of code = bad
:-)
CPANTS
Hi!
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:53:15PM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
* POD/Code ratio (what would be a good measurement?)
use Pod::Coverage ?
As far as I know, Pod::Coverage compiles the module, which makes it not
suitable for CPANTS.
OTOH, it might be an interesting idea to allow
Thomas Klausner wrote:
there are currently 4 dists on CPAN that only include a configure script
(makepp-1.19, glist-0.9.17a10, swig1.1p5, shufflestat-0.0.3)
179 do not include any of Makefile.PL, Build.PL or configure.
Quite a lot come with two or three of those files.
Could we infer
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 12:03:58PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 05:53:15PM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
use Pod::Coverage ?
As far as I know, Pod::Coverage compiles the module, which makes it not
suitable for CPANTS.
Afraid so. It's an eventual TODO-list
Rafael Garcia-Suarez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Klausner wrote:
there are currently 4 dists on CPAN that only include a configure script
(makepp-1.19, glist-0.9.17a10, swig1.1p5, shufflestat-0.0.3)
179 do not include any of Makefile.PL, Build.PL or configure.
Quite a lot come with
Nick Ing-Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could we infer that a distribution that comes with several Makefile.PLs
may have an overcomplicated build process, maybe indicating a low
kwalitee ?
Should I infer that to get Tk's kwalitee up it should build as a
one monolithic .so ?
I don't
Thomas Klausner sent the following bits through the ether:
OTOH, it might be an interesting idea to allow CPANTS to compile code (and
thus use stuff like Devel::Cover) if not testing the whole of CPAN, but
linting one distribution.
Yes. We've been thinking about this. It either needs stealing
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 02:10:46PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Nick Ing-Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could we infer that a distribution that comes with several Makefile.PLs
may have an overcomplicated build process, maybe indicating a low
kwalitee ?
Should I infer that to
Hi!
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 03:24:22PM +0100, Leon Brocard wrote:
Thomas Klausner sent the following bits through the ether:
OTOH, it might be an interesting idea to allow CPANTS to compile code (and
thus use stuff like Devel::Cover) if not testing the whole of CPAN, but
linting one
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 12:09:05PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Thomas Klausner wrote:
there are currently 4 dists on CPAN that only include a configure script
(makepp-1.19, glist-0.9.17a10, swig1.1p5, shufflestat-0.0.3)
179 do not include any of Makefile.PL, Build.PL or
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 11:53:45AM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
configure?
there are currently 4 dists on CPAN that only include a configure script
(makepp-1.19, glist-0.9.17a10, swig1.1p5, shufflestat-0.0.3)
configure's an alien idiom on CPAN. If its found, I think it should be
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
This all suggests another check: stray files. Emacs backup files. CVS
directories. Empty directories. #...# backup files. Makefiles shipped
with Makefile.PL, Build and _build shipped with Build.PL, blib/...
In other words, the contents of the default
On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 10:34:19PM -, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote in perl.qa :
This all suggests another check: stray files. Emacs backup files. CVS
directories. Empty directories. #...# backup files. Makefiles shipped
with Makefile.PL, Build and _build
Yes. We've been thinking about this. It either needs stealing buildd
from Debian, having a box we don't mind destroying every so often, or
having a VMware virtual machine we can undo easily. What we need is
more free time ;-)
User Mode Linux (limiting to Linux, of course) might be a lighter
* Michael G Schwern schwern at pobox.com [2003-10-14 08:27]:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:28:29AM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
* README
Personally, I find READMEs useless duplication. Even more so now that
search.cpan.org works so well.
I'll concede that they are useless duplication if
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:49:44AM -0400, Darren Chamberlain wrote:
I'll concede that they are useless duplication if someone simply does:
perldoc -t Module.pm README
I find them to be useful duplication, but I truly hate doing that
myself, so this is what I use:
Richard == Richard Clamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Richard It pulls out the name, synopsis and author info from the main module,
Richard mixes in the dependencies from META.yml, and then sprinkles on the
Richard last few entries from Changes for good measure.
I'm not even sure that this is
Hi!
CPANTS and Phalanx both care about Kwalitee. So I thought it might be a good
idea to come up with one more or less complete list of Kwalitee-hints that
both projects can use.
A lot of the hints listed at http://qa.perl.org/phalanx/kwalitee.html are
rather vague, which is OK for Phalanx, as
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:28:29AM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
* contains files:
* Makefile.PL or Build.PL or configure
configure?
* README
Personally, I find READMEs useless duplication. Even more so now that
search.cpan.org works so well.
* t/* or test.pl
test.pl is not a good
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Monday 13 October 2003 11:57, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 10:28:29AM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
* contains files:
* Makefile.PL or Build.PL or configure
configure?
* README
Personally, I find READMEs useless
Thomas Klausner wrote in perl.qa :
Hints that were in Leon's last release, but which I didn't port up to now:
* POD errors
* POD/Code ratio (what would be a good measurement?)
use Pod::Coverage ?
* testers results
* number of releases
On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 06:51:43PM +0200, Tels wrote:
* t/* or test.pl
test.pl is not a good thing. It doesn't get parsed by make test. It
just runs and spits the output to the screen. If a test fails, make test
will still succeed. Still, its better than nothing at all.
If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Moin,
On Monday 13 October 2003 10:28, Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
* POD/Code ratio (what would be a good measurement?)
No. Some _very_ complex code takes little documentation like:
=head2 sub delete_first_n_entries($N)
Deletes the first N
28 matches
Mail list logo
