Re: Lancaster Consensus, deal with PUREPERL_ONLY=0

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Am 02.06.2014 um 13:34 schrieb David Golden <[email protected]>:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:28 AM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Others (eg. packagers) have always a compiler and want benefit from XS when
>>> available and what is more important: if the "DEVELOPER MODE FLAGS IS ON",
>>> they want to have a -Werror behavior even for "I enabled foo and it doesn't
>>> appear".
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean by this.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html

Dude!  I know what the compiler flag does!

I don't understand if you're using "-Werror" as an analogy for how you
want cpan clients to behave or if you mean you want "-Werror" to halt
CPAN installation on error even when a PP fallback is available, or
something else entirely.

In my example, if not PUREPERL_ONLY, then if a compiler is present,
compilation works or it fails (possibly due to -Werror), and the
install is halted.

> But ... that brings me to another point of view. Take Unix::Statgrab,
> File::LibMagic or BSD::Resource as example - they won't work without XS
> either. Shall they generally bail-out when PUREPERL_ONLY=1 is set?

Yes and no.  Because they don't offer a PP option, PUREPERL_ONLY is
irrelevant to them. They will fail in their "make" stage as usual.

A more user-friendly author could probe for a compiler and bail out in
Makefile.PL if one doesn't exist, possibly with one of the CPAN
Testers magic strings like "OS unsupported: need a compiler".

It's an incorrect and possibly misleading error message, but it will
result in a CPAN Testers report of "NA" instead of "FAIL".  The other
option is "exit 0" which will just not send a report at all.  E.g.
Devel::CheckLib

David

-- 
David Golden <[email protected]> Twitter/IRC: @xdg