Front page | perl.qa |
Postings from March 2005
Michael G Schwern wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:43:30PM -0600, Ken Williams wrote: > >>I think there's one really good argument in favor of splitting it out >>and one really good argument against. >> >>In favor: if we knew the subset of build_requires that were actually >>needed for testing, then it would be easier for people to squirrel away >>the regression tests and run them again after the module is installed. >>I think people have been vaguely wanting that for a long time. >> >>Against: in the perl culture (largely because of the way MakeMaker has >>always been implemented), testing has always been seen as an integral >>part of the build process. By having people declare testing >>dependencies as part of build_requires, we reinforce this notion. >> >>On the whole, though, I think it's probably a good idea. > > > To throw weight onto the "in favor" side. A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed requirements. Or should we bail, for example, during ./Build test if there are any test_requires failures? Or continue as is and just let it fail when it tries to use the missing requirements? Randy.Thread Previous | Thread Next