develooper Front page | | Postings from March 2005

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

Randy W. Sims
March 29, 2005 17:34
Re: [Module::Build] Re: Test::META
Message ID:
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. Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About