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

Re: [Module::Build] Re: Test::META

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Ken Williams
Date:
March 29, 2005 14:44
Subject:
Re: [Module::Build] Re: Test::META
Message ID:
97c184570ff24f7620ec14f525170e4f@mathforum.org

On Mar 28, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:
>
> I think someone had proposed a year or two ago that there should be a 
> test_requires options and I argued against it. Now, I think maybe it 
> was a good idea; especially, since the number of extra testing modules 
> being used have increased a lot over that time.

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.

On a related note, we should probably finally make the 
prerequisite-specification system treat the requirement level (requires 
vs. recommends vs. conflicts) and requirement scope (build vs. test vs. 
runtime) as completely orthogonal.  Currently there's no such thing as 
build_recommends, for instance, but there's really no good reason it's 
missing.

  -Ken


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