Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister | |
PerlMonks |
comment on |
( [id://3333]=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Nope, see http://wiki.cpantesters.org/wiki/CPANAuthorNotes exit 0 means Makefile.PL succeeded , so rating could PASS ,FAIL, or UNKNOWN, depends on subsequent steps exit 2 means Makefile.PL died , so rating could be FAIL or NA depending on message exit 0 and 'Makefile' not created , rating is UNKNOWN exit 0 and 'Makefile' created, rating depends 'make' and 'make test' to determine PASS or FAIL Now at one point the cpan testers reporting service mixed up these conventions I described, started treating NA as FAIL and UNKNOWN as NA or some such mix of results (not important now)... So follow CPANAuthorNotes, to avoid FAIL, exit 0 to get UNKNOWN, or Devel::AssertOS to get NA UNKNOWN is safer than NA, cause some Win32 modules can run on linux, and some day they might all run on linux :) NA is like the faulty practice of parsing user-agent-string or testing browser version details to determine if the client supports cookies and ajax UNKNOWN is like trying to set a cookie to see if cookies are supported or checking if document.XMLHttpRequest is available to know if ajax is supported In reply to Re^3: Silence CPAN Testers on obviously broken platforms?
by Anonymous Monk
|
|