Re: [Module-build-general] PATCH: added ACTION_versioninstall

[Brian I. <in...@tt...>]

On 24/02/03 14:48 -0600, Ken Williams wrote:
> 
> On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 02:22  PM, Brian Ingerson wrote:
> >
> > (Show me a failing test, and I'll show you a patch! ;)
> 
> Heh - show me a test for only.pm in Module::Build's regression tests, 
> and that would help me never show you a failing test. =)

Heh. Touche!

Well I actually did consider a regression test patch, but I noticed you
didn't have any tests for './Build install' so I blew it off.

> Anyway, patches are no good for already-released software - there will 
> still be buggy combinations out there if such bugs are found by others.
> 
> For instance, bug: with version 0.25, if only.pm can't find a 'version' 
> in get_meta(), it will die regardless of whether the user supplied a 
> 'version' argument.

ouch. good catch.

> It's also possible for the 'distribution_name' key to be null in your 
> meta-file, because it's never checked for success.

Yeah, I know. That field is only for documentation at this point, so I
was silently forgiving.

> I'm not trying to pick on your work, I'm just saying that it's hard to 
> write bug-free (or bug-rare) software without a few releases of it, and 
> that's why I'm saying it's "volatile" at this point.  Later it will 
> become "mature", no doubt.

Pick away! I truly appreciate other people's input and opinions.

> Actually, were you objecting to my use of the word "volatile", or that 
> I required version 0.25 of only?

Not objecting. Just wondering. Thanks for the clarification. And I think
that requiring 0.25 is a good thing.

Cheers, Brian