note
Anonymous Monk
<p> Nope, see [href://http://wiki.cpantesters.org/wiki/CPANAuthorNotes]
<p> exit 0 means Makefile.PL succeeded , so rating could PASS ,FAIL, or UNKNOWN, depends on subsequent steps
<p> exit 2 means Makefile.PL died , so rating could be FAIL or NA depending on message
<p> exit 0 and 'Makefile' not created , rating is UNKNOWN
<p> exit 0 and 'Makefile' created, rating depends 'make' and 'make test' to determine PASS or FAIL
<P> Now at one point the cpan testers reporting service mixed up these conventions I described, started treating NA as FAIL and UNKNOWN as NA or some such mix of results (not important now)... <p> So follow [href://http://wiki.cpantesters.org/wiki/CPANAuthorNotes|CPANAuthorNotes], to avoid FAIL, exit 0 to get UNKNOWN, or Devel::AssertOS to get NA
<p> UNKNOWN is safer than NA, cause some Win32 modules can run on linux, and some day they might all run on linux :)
<p> NA is like the faulty practice of parsing user-agent-string or testing browser version details to determine if the client supports cookies and ajax
<p> UNKNOWN is like trying to set a cookie to see if cookies are supported or checking if document.XMLHttpRequest is available to know if ajax is supported
1004474
1004535
18