On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 08:35:34PM -0800, Michael G Schwern wrote: > > Whether things that are required for *testing* belong in > > build_requires really depends on whether you view testing as an > > integral part of the build process. This is something that is likely > > to depend on the *builder*, not the module author, which is, in my > > mind, the only argument (and a good one) for a separate test_requires. > > The distinction between build_recommends and and a possible > > test_recommends is more ambiguous. > > I agree with this, however I don't really see the ambiguity about > test_recommends.
"ambiguous" was the wrong word to use, sorry. I just meant that the argument for separating out test_requires is a lot stronger than for test_recommends; I'd like to see them both, but I had the impression public opinion was weighted against them, so I was trying to argue for the more important one.
