develooper Front page | perl.qa | Postings from March 2005

Re: Test::META

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes
Date:
March 29, 2005 01:14
Subject:
Re: Test::META
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
> test_recommends.

"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.

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About