> ... because I set mine up with cpanm

1) I for sure will give this way a try. I had not the best experience with this tool but if it offers a cleaner, inteleggible, customizable and easy way to set up a cpan tester environment I will adopt it without esitations.

My intention is to spot all dark corners of the cpan tester setup in strawberry and, possibly, end with a little walktrough: infact i see few win32 testers and many times using punch card era machines (my respect for them anyway but the spectrum is by far too little).

> cpan-specific questions -- like the uninitialized errors

2) This is one of my major dissapoint at the moment. I'm used to see perl running smoothly and shining for its intrinsic quality. I expect (with all the patience I'm able of) the toolchain to be super portable, super tested, super simple, super reliable. Super as perl. Which modules of the dozens installed by the Task::CPAN::Reporter bundle causes the error? Not even using Carp?

Little excursus: why this huge amount of non core dependencies? I see this signaled as issue and srezic propose a super simple approach I very like this direction: cut, cut, cut.. I'll try his way too.

> I'm assuming these are the tests you were mentioning: I now see three, two with no name, and one with the name present. If so, your most-recent submission used your name.

3) Yes they are, but I'm conducing various tests from two machines and always with brand new strawberry installations with a sanitized PATH and the third report comes from my home machine (and see also my note at step 4 above). I'm collecting all quirks and unwanted behaviours and probably results from this other test will go in a sperate post in this thread.

> However, I do know that I've successfully copied my .cpanreporter folder to multiple versions of portable strawberry

4) Theese are good news! Which steps you'have done before copying it? Also this must be documented in a better way, imho.

> your PAUSE ID here, and I remembered your sadness a few days back of so few passes

5) ;=) thanks! you are very kind even if this is the very last of my concerns at the moment. The whole point of my experimental module is the presence of an executable that I supposed to be present almost since ever, but were not present in these punch card machine of the respected testers. No worry ;) I have added a check in the Makefile.PL and, even if not optimal I know the problem. I also have few things to change. i call it an experiment because was my own gymnasium confronting my knoledges in the wild. But thanks!

L*