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

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

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Ken Williams
Date:
April 1, 2005 12:46
Subject:
Re: [Module::Build] Re: Test::META
Message ID:
cf06c1e3c2c97a547d7df51914c5cc01@mathforum.org

On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:44 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:

> Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Continue.  Nothing's more frustrating than a system which refuses to 
>> even
>> try to go forward when some checklist is incomplete.
>
> Hmm, I was actually sitting here playing with it again. But I was 
> leaning more towards the 2nd option. The first option of bailing at 
> Build.PL time obviously doesn't make sense as you can complete a build 
> without running test. But does it make sense to test when a required 
> testing module is missing?

Since the 'build', 'test', and 'install' actions are considered the 
"critical path" for installing a module, I think it makes sense to warn 
(not die) during "perl Build.PL" when one of their 
required/recommended/conflict dependencies aren't met.  Thereafter, 
only die/warn when running an action and its required/recommended 
dependencies aren't met.

  -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