On 11/2/14 2:00 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> Ick; I concur with your judgment on those aspects of the IPC::Cmd design.
>> Thanks for investigating. So, surviving options include:
>>
>> 1. Require IPC::Run.
>> 2. Write our own run() that reports the raw exit code.
>> 3. Distill the raw exit code from the IPC::Cmd::run() error string.
>> 4. Pass IPC::Run::run_forked() a subroutine that execs an argument list.
>
> FWIW, (3) looks most promising to me. That is to say, implement a reverse of
> IPC::Cmd::_pp_child_error(). Ugly to be sure, but the wart can be small and
> self-contained.
I thank you for this research, but I suggest that we ship 9.4 as is,
that is with requiring IPC::Run and --enable-* option. All the possible
alternatives will clearly need more rounds of portability testing. We
can then evaluate these changes for 9.5 in peace.
