Stuff with the Perl Foundation. A couple of patches in the Perl core. A few CPAN modules. That about sums it up.
You know, I don't feel comfortable that this test.pl file automatically tries to email the author of the module when installed via cpan or cpanplus. I suppose it's not a big deal for most folks, but it really bugs me when automated things do stuff I'm not expecting.
Negative score at CPANTS? (Score:1)
Talk to the author (Score:1)
phone_home on a mail module? (Score:1)
Normally, I'm totally opposed to a "phone_home" attempt hidden in a module, but this is for sendmail and it's in a test file.
Moreover, the author has this disclaimer:
So this one doesn't bother me so much, as it seems well-intended as part of a test instead of being something for tracking purposes.
There's probably a clever ways to test without actually need
Re: (Score:2)
The disclaimer doesn't matter much when you're running cpanplus and you see it scroll past and there's nothing you can do about it. Also, I'm sure there are plenty of folks who can think of reasons why they don't want email automatically sent, whether they saw a warning message flash by or not.
And yes,someone (possibly me since I'm grumbling) should offer a patch. At the very least, something which prompts the person "do you really want to send an email?"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not really too naughty , well compared to the CPAN module that (used to?) downloads some perl code from the authors website and eval it.
Best way to do it? (Score:2)
Would that be reasonable?
Re: (Score:1)
On the other hand, tracking users is probably as futile as web hit counters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd feel a lot more comfortable with that, but there's a better way. If you're using ExtUtil::MakeMaker (and I believe Module::Build offers the same functionality), then you can force a default if not running interactively. From the docs [cpan.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
http://ali.as/devel/phonehome.html [ali.as]
Whenever anyone asks about CPAN statistics or phone home implmentations, I point them at that.
Although I have to say adding the idea of UDP is interesting and probably would add some value to it.
Re: (Score:1)
Adam, I like the idea. I think it is well thought out and deserves to be pushed. My only suggestion, as a tip o' the hat to the FOAD crowd is that it the setting should default to 'never', not 'ask'.
The question can be asked the next time the config process is run, but defaulting to 'ask' is wrong, since you're now adding a new hoop to jump through by default, where none existed before.