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

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

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Randy W. Sims
Date:
March 29, 2005 17:34
Subject:
Re: [Module::Build] Re: Test::META
Message ID:
424A01FC.3020304@ThePierianSpring.org
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.

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