Skip Menu |
 

This queue is for tickets about the Module-CPANTS-Analyse CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 93361
Status: open
Priority: 0/
Queue: Module-CPANTS-Analyse

People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: ether [...] cpan.org
Cc:
AdminCc:

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



Subject: new metric suggestion: installs to the wrong place
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 223b
Distributions should not be installing to locations not provided for in INSTALLDIRS directories. Here is an example of a dist (and problem report) that doesn't respect that: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=34768
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 441b
Interesting, and I agree the distribution you mentioned is problematic, but is it really machine-detectable (ie. without actually running Makefile.PL/Build.PL)? On Wed Feb 26 04:12:39 2014, ETHER wrote: Show quoted text
> Distributions should not be installing to locations not provided for > in INSTALLDIRS directories. > > Here is an example of a dist (and problem report) that doesn't respect > that: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=34768
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 583b
On 2014-02-25 20:37:01, ISHIGAKI wrote: Show quoted text
> Interesting, and I agree the distribution you mentioned is > problematic, but is it really machine-detectable (ie. without actually > running Makefile.PL/Build.PL)?
If we can parse the options passed to WriteMakefile, we could... but just running Makefile.PL/Build.PL itself (without proceeding on to make/Build) is probably harmless, if we do it in a Safe compartment. This might be better done as a cpantesters-style test. It's something I want to discuss at Lyon - taking more measurements and issuing more grades than simply PASS/FAIL.
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 893b
On Thu Feb 27 01:59:03 2014, ETHER wrote: Show quoted text
> On 2014-02-25 20:37:01, ISHIGAKI wrote:
> > Interesting, and I agree the distribution you mentioned is > > problematic, but is it really machine-detectable (ie. without > > actually > > running Makefile.PL/Build.PL)?
> > If we can parse the options passed to WriteMakefile, we could... but > just running Makefile.PL/Build.PL itself (without proceeding on to > make/Build) is probably harmless, if we do it in a Safe compartment.
If it were safe enough for us to run *.PL, we wouldn't need META stuff, would we? :) I know we can probably do something like what Module::Depends(::Intrusive) does, but that should be the last resort. Show quoted text
> This might be better done as a cpantesters-style test. It's something > I want to discuss at Lyon - taking more measurements and issuing more > grades than simply PASS/FAIL.
Looking forward to the discussion.


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.