develooper Front page | | Postings from April 2005

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

David Golden
April 1, 2005 12:59
Re: [Module::Build] Re: Test::META
Message ID:
Ken Williams wrote:

> On Mar 30, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 05:53:37PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
>>> Should we completely open this up so that requires/recommends/conflicts
>>> can be applied to any action?
>>> install_recommends => ...
>>> testcover_requires => ...
>>> etc.
>> This sounds useful and solves a lot of problems at one sweep.  You 
>> can use
>> the existing dependency architecture to determine what needs what.  
>> Such as
>> testcover needs both test_requires and testcover_requires.
> There's a problem with this that I'm not sure how to solve: what 
> happens when, as part of refactoring, a chunk of one action gets 
> factored out to become its own sub-action?  The dependency may well 
> pertain to the new sub-action instead of the original action, but 
> distribution authors won't have any way to know this - or even if they 
> did, they couldn't declare it in a forward-compatible way.
I freely admit that I haven't been following this thread closely (I 
guess Ken's posts have a lower activation energy for me), but the 
suggested approach sounds way overengineered.  How many modules really 
needs this kind of thing?  I'm not sure that adding complexity to the 
requirements management system for those learning/using Module::Build is 
worth it for what I imagine to be relatively few modules that would wind 
up using such functionality.

I'd rather see requires/recommends kept at a high level and let 
individual actions/tests check for what they need and be smart about how 
to handle missing dependencies.

David Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About