Re: DBI package problem?

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Tim Bunce <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 03:29:11PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
>> > Where do you get the 70%/30% ratio from?
>>
>> Uploaded a package to CPAN with
>>  - a test that fails when DBI is not installed, and
>>  - a Build.PL which does not indicate that DBI is a requirement (even
>> though it is).
>
> And then you counted pass/fail stats that largely come from automated
> smoke testers

I did.

> on virtual machines that have their modules removed
> after each run.

Sounds very likely.

>> > I'd like to see details of the specific underlying problems that cause
>> > build failures with the current release. Ideally with some indication of
>> > which are the most frequent.
>>
>> You would be missing the point.
>>
>> (The point being not to pour lots of work into making the C version
>> work everywhere, but to make it just *possible* to install only the
>> PurePerl version on the <1% of systems where the C version cannot be
>> made to work or other reasons motivate the use of the PurePerl
>> version.)
>
> As I said before, I'll happily take a patch to Makefile.PL that detects
> the lack of a C compiler and then alters %opts so WriteMakefile() writes
> a Makefile that won't try to compile DBI.xs etc etc.

But you would not be willing to make the PurePerl version of DBI
separately available.

I wonder why, as the latter seems like a much simpler and resilient approach.

Anyway, thanks a lot for your input.