On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:24:34 -0700, Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That is different than a tarball though. Does the script installation
have to be given up in order to eliminate the ambiguous behavior in the
case of a dist tarball?
Good point. I can probably limit it to cases
# from Aristotle Pagaltzis
# on Wednesday 03 September 2008 10:38:
But the FAIL did fail to point out the true source of the
problem. And IMO this hints at a real problem that was mentioned
in this thread, but was not really indicted: namely CPAN.pm’s
logic that if there is no Makefile.PL, it is
* Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-09-03 20:00]:
I've been told that it is intended for tarballs made in the
times when there was no such thing as Makefile.PL yet.
The cure seems worse than the disease at this point in time then.
Maybe the heuristic in CPAN.pm could be just a little more
# from Andreas J. Koenig
# on Wednesday 03 September 2008 13:11:
And when you ask the CPAN shell to install
ANDK/keepcool-0.344 you'll probably be surprised that this *script*
installs just fine.
% head /home/ftp/pub/PAUSE/authors/id/A/AN/ANDK/keepcool-0.344
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
=head1 NAME
On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:57:20 -0700, Eric Wilhelm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And IMO this hints at a real problem that was mentioned
in this thread, but was not really indicted: namely CPAN.pm’s
logic that if there is no Makefile.PL, it is a sane idea to make
one up out of whole cloth. I
# from Gabor Szabo
# on Tuesday 02 September 2008 14:42:
I'm pretty damned sure that this a straw man. Can you point at any
regular tester who *right now* is regularly failing to follow the
dependency chain?
actually both my recent modules get tons of FAIL reports as they only
have Build.PL
# from David Cantrell
# on Tuesday 02 September 2008 17:23:
Seeing that there's no
Makefile.PL in that directory, it creates one for you, and then
everything goes pear-shaped because that Makefile.PL doesn't list any
dependencies.
Would putting everything goes pear-shaped in the report title
