David Golden schrieb:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Marc Lucksch <p...@marc-s.de> wrote:
So there are two ways to solve this:
Either remove them from the Kwalitee indicator (which would be bad).
This is the right answer. Things required for xt should not be in
build_requires as they do not impact the build/test/install cycle.
And what about the optional Test::NoWarnings?
If it isn't in build_requires, I get bad kwalitee, if its there, the
module will be installed without being really needed. If I hide it with
trickery from being detected, I will fail the *uses_test_nowarnings*.
Or tests in general, since they are not required to be run during build,
but should be?
The only modules required for the build process (without make test) are
ExtUtils::MakeMaker, Module::Install and Module::Build.
And how do I petition the Module::Build author to put this in the spec
(optional of course)
Usually, discussion seems to happen on the module-build mailing list,
but last year the QA Hackathon seemed to be the place to debate
extensions like the one you mentioned. There was some consideration
last year of breaking out build/test/install requires further but
there was no consensus for it. One of the issues is that it
introduces yet another round of CPAN/CPANPLUS upgrades, so in your
example, you'd need to have a "configure_requires" that lists a newer
CPAN/CPANPLUS.
Do CPAN/CPANPLUS die on entries of META.yml they don't know about? They
could should ignore it since most are not needed anyway, except
test_requires.
I don't really see a problem in people updating their CPAN or CPANPLUS.
My opinion is that changing META.yml for the sake of Kwalitee is not a
good idea.
It's not just for the sake of Kwalitee, it is metadata more or less
useful for other uses of META.yml as well.
Marc "Maluku" Lucksch.
