Front page | perl.qa |
Postings from March 2005
From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
March 29, 2005 01:14
Message ID: 20050329091355.GA11776@efn.org
On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 08:35:34PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote:
> > Whether things that are required for *testing* belong in
> > build_requires really depends on whether you view testing as an
> > integral part of the build process. This is something that is likely
> > to depend on the *builder*, not the module author, which is, in my
> > mind, the only argument (and a good one) for a separate test_requires.
> > The distinction between build_recommends and and a possible
> > test_recommends is more ambiguous.
> I agree with this, however I don't really see the ambiguity about
"ambiguous" was the wrong word to use, sorry. I just meant that the
argument for separating out test_requires is a lot stronger than for
test_recommends; I'd like to see them both, but I had the impression
public opinion was weighted against them, so I was trying to argue for
the more important one.