Skip Menu |
 

This queue is for tickets about the PathTools CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 74820
Status: open
Priority: 0/
Queue: PathTools

People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: ribasushi [...] leporine.io
Cc: rt-cpan [...] trout.me.uk
AdminCc:

Bug Information
Severity: Important
Broken in: (no value)
Fixed in: (no value)



CC: rt-cpan [...] trout.me.uk
Subject: The XS part of Cwd ought to be optional
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 910b
There is a number of different "can we build XS" checks available in the wild currently. All of them end up simply relying on ExtUtils::CBuilder->new->has_compiler (with various fallbacks when EU::CB is not available, most of them plain suck). While EU::CB itself properly installs and tests in an environment without a compiler, it depends on a specific version of File::Spec, not available on older perls. In that line of events, File::Spec itself is a pure-perl module, but Cwd has an XS portion, which PathTools insists on building, even though a PP falback is available. As a result if someone with a gcc-less system tries to install a module which configure-requires EU::CB on e.g. perl 5.8.5 using something that does respect configure-requires (e.g. cpanminus) - the installation will ultimately fail, without any clear workarounds. Is it possible to make the lack of XS a soft-failure for PathTools?
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 225b
I support the idea in theory. What I wouldn't want is for the twisty turns of CWD code to get even more complicated as a result, though. It's already pretty yucky. Maybe this is an opportunity to make things tidier? -Ken
CC: rt-cpan [...] trout.me.uk
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #74820] The XS part of Cwd ought to be optional
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:59:37 +0100
To: bug-PathTools [...] rt.cpan.org
From: Peter Rabbitson <ribasushi [...] cpan.org>
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 462b
Ken Williams via RT wrote: Show quoted text
> <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=74820 > > > I support the idea in theory. What I wouldn't want is for the twisty > turns of CWD code to get even more complicated as a result, though. > It's already pretty yucky. Maybe this is an opportunity to make things > tidier? >
This concerns only the build-stage doesn't it? I am not proposing to change anything in Cwd - it already has all the necessary PP fallbacks.
Makes sense to me. We should try to ensure everything builds clean on a gcc-less system.
RT-Send-CC: rt-cpan [...] trout.me.uk
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 277b
So what would be a way forward here? I can furnish a patch to the Makefile.PL of PathTools, which re-implements the latest EU::BC compile check and decides whether to build the .xs. Checking before I dive into this, as there may be more elegant solutions I have not thought of.


This service is sponsored and maintained by Best Practical Solutions and runs on Perl.org infrastructure.

Please report any issues with rt.cpan.org to rt-cpan-admin@bestpractical.com.