Re: Should we start adding '-Utaint_support' to CPANtesters configurations

On 22/04/2022 07:30, Neil Bowers wrote:
> I’d hold fire on doing anything for a couple of days – there has been an 
> extra-time objection to my taint change, which may result in it being 
> reverted.
> 
> I’ll update you here once it’s resolved either way.

I thought that objection was just about how the user is asked about it 
when configuring interactively. But in any case, I have another 
potential minor objection - but whether it's a p5p thing or a 
CPAN::Reporter thing I don't know:

$ ./blead Tie::Scalar::Decay
...
CPAN::Reporter: Test result is 'pass', 'make test' no errors.
CPAN::Reporter: preparing a CPAN Testers report for Tie-Scalar-Decay-1.1.1
CPAN::Reporter: sending test report with 'pass' via Metabase
...

$ ./blead-no-taint Tie::Scalar::Decay
...
CPAN::Reporter: Test result is 'pass', 'make test' no errors.
CPAN::Reporter: preparing a CPAN Testers report for Tie-Scalar-Decay-1.1.1
CPAN::Reporter: this appears to be a duplicate report for the test phase:
...

Note that CPAN::Reporter can't tell from what's in its list of 
previously sent reports that this is a different perl built with 
different options. Building with and without -Utaint_support makes no 
difference to `archname`, which is what CPAN::Reporter uses to tell the 
difference between eg threaded and non-threaded, or normal float vs 
longdouble vs quadmath builds.

I'm not sure whether this difference should show up in archname or not, 
but if it shouldn't then CPAN::Reporter will need an update so it can 
dig it out of Config.pm. It appears to only exist in config_args.

-- 
David Cantrell