Front page | perl.qa |
Postings from March 2005
From: Michael G Schwern
March 28, 2005 15:11
Message ID: 20050328231052.GA14928@windhund.schwern.org
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 08:42:50AM -0500, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
> That's another gripe of mine about M::B and create_makefile_pl.
> It puts the requires AND build_requires in the PREREQ_PM in the
> Makefile.PL, which I won't want; nor do I think it right for everyone.
There is no build_requires or recommends equivalent in MakeMaker, nor will
there be, so putting it into PREREQ_PM is the best thing to do. That's
what every MakeMaker-based module on CPAN does after all.
Its better than just dropping it and having the build fail.
> Take Test::More for example. It's usually a build_requires and the other
> Test* things like Test::Strict, Apache::Test, etc are in recommends.
> Test probably won't run with Test::More, but skipping a few subtests
> based on recommends is ok. But I don't think build_requires should be a
> PREREQ_PM requirement at all.
*scratch head* but if you don't have the modules necessary to BUILD the
module (as opposed to those necessary to run it)... how are you going to
> For that matter, it's not really clear what the expected outcome of a
> missing build_requires requirement is as far as CPAN/CPANPLUS is concerned.
I'd think it would be the same as a missing requires or PREREQ_PM
requirement. CPAN shells build modules. If they don't have the
prerequisites to do that... well then things won't work. I don't know if
the CPAN shells will attempt to build the module anyway or just refuse,
but the introduction of build_requires doesn't change that behavior.
Maybe there's some confusion here as to what "build_requires" means?
Perhaps you're confusing it with the (possibly mythological) test_requires
Or maybe you're thinking its "Module::Build requires"?