# from Ken Williams on Tuesday 12 June 2007 09:00 pm:
>It's currently exactly analogous to the
>other prereq types, except that during the "dist" action we'll warn
>the author if there's an item in config_requires that isn't present
>in any of the other prereq fields.
# from Ken Williams on Thursday 19 July 2007 07:00 pm:
>On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>> I think we want to treat missing c_r entries as show-stoppers.
>> That is,
>> configure_requires => {Module::Build => 0.28} should be analogous
>> to `use Module::Build 0.28;`
>You want to invent that time machine then, or should I? If someone
>has M::B 0.26 installed, they'll continue on their merry way until
>something blows up.
Oh, right. Everyone still has to type this in their Build.PL until we
can be sure that enough clients have been forced to upgrade.
requires => {
'Module::Build' => 0.26,
...
}
So, yes. *For Now* I guess we want to warn if they didn't mention them
in the other prereq fields. We should ultimately be moving away from
that[1]. After all, the reason we need configure_requires is that
clients are not able to properly handle configure-time dependencies
unless they read it out of META.yml.
[1] After which, we could start warn()ing authors to remove such
redundant bits from their 'requires' specs.
--Eric
--
Introducing change is like pulling off a bandage: the pain is a memory
almost as soon as you feel it.
--Paul Graham
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
