Correction: CPAN::Meta::Check is *NOT* safer for the purposes of CPAN::Testers.
C::R::PC ensures that the dependent module is *loadable*, not just
that it has the right version.
We have seen problems before where "Foo" has "use Bar 1.23" but Bar
can't be loaded or has a too-old version, causing Foo to fail to
compile.
Even though Foo is *installed*, it is in a broken state and we MUST
NOT send failure reports if a prerequisite is in a broken state.
Unless I'm missing something, CPAN::Meta::Check is not sufficient as
currently written for this purpose.
David
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:54 PM, David Golden <dagolden@cpan.org> wrote:
Show quoted text> What do you mean by "safer"?
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Olivier Mengué via RT
> <bug-CPAN-Reporter@rt.cpan.org> wrote:
>> Wed Jul 31 16:44:12 2013: Request 87497 was acted upon.
>> Transaction: Ticket created by DOLMEN
>> Queue: CPAN-Reporter
>> Subject: use CPAN::Meta::Check in CPAN::Reporter::PrereqCheck
>> Broken in: (no value)
>> Severity: (no value)
>> Owner: Nobody
>> Requestors: dolmen@cpan.org
>> Status: new
>> Ticket <URL:
https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=87497 >
>>
>>
>> Despites adding a few more dependencies, it would be safer to use CPAN::Meta::Check for the implementation of CPAN::Reporter::PrereqCheck.
>>
>> --
>> Olivier Mengué -
http://perlresume.org/DOLMEN
>
>
>
> --
> David Golden <dagolden@cpan.org>
> Take back your inbox! →
http://www.bunchmail.com/
> Twitter/IRC: @xdg
--
David Golden <dagolden@cpan.org>
Take back your inbox! →
http://www.bunchmail.com/
Twitter/IRC: @xdg
