Whe you say "I'm installing modules that I know on an OS that I have used them on before, so I don't consider it risky.", do you mean the SAME MACHINE that the tests have passed, or the fact that the tests passed on one machine, so install on the other with the same OS should be ok?
I understand the argument, and agree with it in situations like developer tests vs. install tests, or where tests don't ship with the modules. But surely this is the exception rather than the rule?
The majority of CPAN modules don't fall into this category and failing 'make test's almost always mean that the modules aren't going to work as expected and really should just as well be considered build failures.
For those who didn't want to always run the tests during 'make' or 'Build' there would always be the command line option to not run tests.
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I always get mixed signals from the people more important than I in the community about it. Everyone likes to say that having makeing and using tests is of the utmost importance; and everyone like to jump on on the "did you actually run make test" bandwagon when someone reports a module malfunction, yet running the tests is still an optional proposition for the person installing the module. I've always thoug (in the case of most CPAN modules that ship the tests as part of the dist) that a test failure should constitute the same as a build/make failure; and as equals; tie them together.