Classifying Android (OT?)

Anonymous Monk has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

I took over the management of CPANDeps earlier this year (see CPANdeps end of life) and have just been alerted to some tests coming in from an Android smoker. We haven't seen any of these before.

I would like to ask your opinion on whether, for the purposes of seeing test stats by O/S, Android results should be counted as Linux or should have their own, separate category. They are currently showing up separately in the matrix (eg. http://matrix.cpantesters.org/?dist=Math-Prime-Util) but that is probably by default rather than the result of a conscious choice. CPANDeps will be set up to count them separately for now as it will be much simpler to merge them later if required rather than split them out.

This isn't so much the general gnarly question of "Is Android Linux?" but more "Do you want/expect Android tests to be distinct from Linux ones in the stats?" - thanks for any thoughts.

Comment on Classifying Android (OT?)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Classifying Android (OT?) by Corion (Patriarch) on Nov 08, 2021 at 12:52 UTC
Thank you for maintaining CPANDeps! From my (little) work of getting Perl to work on Android, lots of assumptions that one makes when dealing with Linux and it's libc don't hold on Android. Mostly, this is because the C library functions are not implemented or implemented as dummy functions (instead of being simply missing). Personally, I feel that Android is far enough from Linux to warrant its own category, because there will be lots of Android-specific (compilation) failures that happen on no other Linux distribution/kernel/libc.	[reply]
Re: Classifying Android (OT?) by Tux (Canon) on Nov 08, 2021 at 13:55 UTC
Personally I do not think this is an OT question at all! Sorry to see you as AM rather than the person who deserves ++ for taking up this task! Much appreciated! As a module-maintainer, I personally would like to see Android to have its own class/category. Enjoy, Have FUN! H.Merijn	[reply]
Re: Classifying Android (OT?) by LanX (Saint) on Nov 08, 2021 at 13:23 UTC
Thanks for that interesting question! :) Apart from the fact that Android is a heavily "adjusted" Linux where enough things work not/differently. I think it's important from a "visibility" perspective, to show that Perl modules can be applied there too. Not only for marketing, but also as incentive for authors to target Android. :) Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re: Classifying Android (OT?) by soonix (Chancellor) on Nov 08, 2021 at 13:01 UTC
I would expect some differences, although not so much because of the OS, but because of the distinction "handheld device" versus "Servers, Desktop, Laptops"	[reply]
Re: Classifying Android (OT?) by Bod (Parson) on Nov 09, 2021 at 00:15 UTC
I totally agree with Tux It would be beneficial in many ways if Android had a separate category and that the question is not OT Also, ++ for taking this on even if you are Anonymous...	[reply]
Re: Classifying Android (OT?) by talexb (Chancellor) on Nov 11, 2021 at 01:21 UTC
I have to pile on here and echo the thanks of my colleagues .. your help is greatly appreciated. And I think it's fine to leave Android as a separate group, even if the base OS is Linux. It's a different enough environment that it's useful to know when something fails, but shouldn't raise an alarm for all Linux installations. Alex / talexb / Toronto Thanks PJ. We owe you so much. Groklaw -- RIP -- 2003 to 2013.	[reply]
Re: Classifying Android (OT?) by Anonymous Monk on Nov 26, 2021 at 09:55 UTC
Thanks everyone for your responses. When posting the question I was expecting that a majority would be in favour of maintaining the distinction but intentionally refrained from mentioning this. What I was not expecting was a unanimous result. In light of this, CPANDeps will continue to treat Android as a separate O/S and it will not be included in the general figures under "Linux". I would also like to thank you all for the kind words of appreciation in keeping this service running. It is good to hear that others are using and valuing the service and that there are some other non-bots visiting the site!	[reply]