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
