Re^6: Module::Build users -- please use the "traditional" create_makefile

(You know you're talking to the guy who built EToys practically by himself, right?)

The point is that if you have a homogenous system (all from the same manufacturer, all the same model, all built off the same install disk), you don't have to run the tests. And, if you don't have a homogenous system, what on earth are you doing? You can't write good code for a system you aren't testing on.

failing 'make test's almost always mean that the modules aren't going to work as expected and really should just as well be considered build failures.

When I was running MP2, I had a test failure nearly every time I installed it. I never used those features. Does this mean that MP2 didn't work for me? The websites I ran on it would bely that assessment ...

In general, if you think something isn't in Perl, try it out, because it usually is. :-)
"What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the sound of a wall that people have stopped banging their heads against?"

Comment on Re^6: Module::Build users -- please use the "traditional" create_makefile_pl option

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Module::Build users -- please use the "traditional" create_makefile_pl option by perrin (Chancellor) on May 18, 2005 at 20:40 UTC
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I don't want to take credit for building eToys by myself. We had a pretty large (20 or so) team of coders working on the site, including some of the most talented people I've had the pleasure of working with.	[reply]
Re^7: Module::Build users -- please use the "traditional" create_makefile_pl option by jk2addict (Chaplain) on May 18, 2005 at 20:09 UTC
The point is that if you have a homogenous system (all from the same manufacturer, all the same model, all built off the same install disk), you don't have to run the tests. Does that same install disk include the EXACT copy of perl with all installed modules as production. or was perl and the other modules installed manually on each server? I understand the theory that they "should" be the same, but that's usually not the real world. Shit happens. I'd much rather find out something is broken, missing, out of place, borked on an install while running tests than when it's in production and I didn't run the tests. And like I said, I'm not a "always run make test" saint. But assuming things are kosher just because it works on the three other same-OS machines installed form the same disc seems like an accident waiting to happen. THe whole point of tests is to point out problems before they effect production. Sometimes those are tests in the dist. Sometimes they're not. But to each their own.	[reply]