search

Perl-Toolchain-Gang / ExtUtils-MakeMaker

Perl module to make Makefiles and build modules (what backs Makefile.PL)
https://metacpan.org/release/ExtUtils-MakeMaker
64 stars 77 forks source link

Skip the failing dynamic vs static tests on Win32 in blead #369

Closed toddr closed 4 years ago

toddr commented 4 years ago

Work around for https://github.com/Perl/perl5/issues/17601

See also https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=115321

This mirror's @tonycoz 's merge to blead found here https://github.com/Perl/perl5/pull/18157

karenetheridge commented 4 years ago

It would be good to get to the bottom of these test issues, rather than disabling them.

toddr commented 4 years ago

I agree. However, RT-115321 has been open for 4 years now.

Also to Quote @tonycoz:

%Config provides the information required, but the generated Makefile in this case is generated for LINKTYPE=static, but then run with LINKTYPE=dynamic for Linux that's not such a big deal, if perl is dynamic ccflags includes -fPIC as a matter of course, which just slows the resulting binary, but it is a problem on Win32 due to the way data imports work. I have trouble believing anyone is doing this in the wild ... it might be that the test just isn't practical on Win32, to make it work I think you'd have to use whatever conditional mechanisms the various Win32 makes support.

This has been causing noise on the smokers and I agree with him that turning the test off for a truly corner case like this makes sense until someone comes back and says: I care about Perl running this way on Windows. I am dubious that this will ever happen.

Leont commented 4 years ago

It would be good to get to the bottom of these test issues, rather than disabling them.

I think it's understood well enough. It's the sort of thing that is not very portable, and arguably people shouldn't be doing this anyway (but probably someone does).

That said, not passing through LINKTYPE may be a better solution.

toddr commented 4 years ago

That said, not passing on LINKTYPE may be a better solution.

@Leont To move this forward, would you be up for providing the alternative pull request?

OR: Can we merge this and you provide the alternative when it is available?

Leont commented 4 years ago

@Leont To move this forward, would you be up for providing the alternative pull request?

OR: Can we merge this and you provide the alternative when it is available?

Changing this is trivial, but I haven't figured out if anything would break. I can't think of anything, but this is MakeMaker we're talking about…

toddr commented 4 years ago

Changing this is trivial, but I haven't figured out if anything would break. I can't think of anything, but this is MakeMaker we're talking about…

And while it's critical, we also get feedback really fast when it breaks something. Given we've thought about it for 4 years. maybe the best option at this point is to try your suggestion and get feedback?

xsawyerx commented 4 years ago

Changing this is trivial, but I haven't figured out if anything would break. I can't think of anything, but this is MakeMaker we're talking about…

And while it's critical, we also get feedback really fast when it breaks something. Given we've thought about it for 4 years. maybe the best option at this point is to try your suggestion and get feedback?

I was going to respond with a similar question. Would it not be useful to put in the suggestion solution and try to receive feedback?