I see nothing unsafe about either patch, so long as the meta-spec is specified as version 2. Can you clarify your concerns?
Perhaps reading the section in prerequisite phases in the meta spec might clarify things a bit: https://metacpan.org/pod/CPAN::Meta::Spec#PREREQUISITES (PS. I found the discussion in https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=112568) -ETHER On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Ron Savage <r...@savage.net.au> wrote: > Hi > > Kent Fredric has proposed 2 alternate patches to my most recent > Makefile.PL for Tree::DAG_Node (V 1.28). > > The point is to completely remove the need for an end-user of this - and > of other - modules to have Test::Pod installed. > > It's not clear from these patches, but the upper part of both is under > TEST_REQUIRES, and he warns me against switching to BUILD_REQUIRES. > > a.patch > > --- Makefile.PL.3 2016-03-01 14:41:14.147052412 +1300 > +++ Makefile.PL.1 2016-03-01 14:39:20.713057559 +1300 > @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ > 'File::Spec' => 3.40, > 'File::Temp' => 0.19, > 'Test::More' => 1.001014, > - 'Test::Pod' => 1.48, > }, > VERSION_FROM => 'lib/Tree/DAG_Node.pm', > ); > > > b.patch > > --- Makefile.PL.3 2016-03-01 14:41:14.147052412 +1300 > +++ Makefile.PL.2 2016-03-01 14:40:09.053055429 +1300 > @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ > 'File::Spec' => 3.40, > 'File::Temp' => 0.19, > 'Test::More' => 1.001014, > - 'Test::Pod' => 1.48, > }, > VERSION_FROM => 'lib/Tree/DAG_Node.pm', > ); > @@ -67,6 +66,13 @@ > web => ' > https://github.com/ronsavage/Tree-DAG_Node', > }, > }, > + prereqs => { > + develop => { > + requires => { > + 'Test::Pod' => 1.48 > + } > + } > + } > }; > } > > Clearly a.patch is safest because it's minimalist. But is b.patch 100% > safe? Neither he nor I know. Does anybody? > > TIA. > -- > Ron Savage - savage.net.au >
