Re: Last call for review of Test-Builder using Test2 (Formerly Test-Stream)
*bump* This thread has produced very little chatter. Bumping the thread again after talking to rjbs. Next week he and I are going to talk about next steps. (Please do not read that as we will talk next week and release, that is not intended, implied, or expected). -Chad
Re: Why do we keep using META.json for stuff that has nothing to do with installation
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 12:14:36AM +1300, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 28 February 2016 at 00:06, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > > perhaps rethinking "Meta for end-user install purposes" and > > "Meta for meta" would solve most of the recent repeated breakages by "oh > > downstream doesn't like this new thingymagic" > I've been frustrated by this myself, the large amounts of auxilliary > data just makes decoding the META needlessly complicated. Does it? Absent bugs in the decoder, the extra data is just hash keys that you don't bother looking at. If you're not interested in, for example, knowing that Moose provides Class::MOP, don't look at the 'provides' hash key. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice Languages for which ISO-Latin-$n is not necessary, #1 in a series: Latin
Re: Looking for prior art on conventions for dep-listing
On 03/02/2016 12:18 PM, Olivier Mengué wrote: Is 'listdep' just a typo or will we really have both 'listdeps' and 'listdep'? Typo ;)
Re: Looking for prior art on conventions for dep-listing
2016-03-02 10:39 GMT+01:00 Peter Rabbitson : > The use case in question is that I am preparing to replace > Module::Install's `perl Makefile.PL && make listdeps` idiom with a > pure-EUMM-based "something else". I was looking for available prior art in order to converge on *naming*. > Given further searching and the replies in this thread, I am simply going > to recreate the 'listdep' target more-or-less-as-is. > > Is 'listdep' just a typo or will we really have both 'listdeps' and 'listdep'? > Thanks for the thoughts! > Cheers >
Re: Looking for prior art on conventions for dep-listing
On 03/01/2016 09:43 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: I am currently aware of the Module::Install-specific targets of `make listdeps` (only what is needed to satisfy test/runtime prereqs) `make listalldeps` (everything the metadata knows about) There is the dzil alternative of: `dzil listdeps` (everything) `dzil listdeps --missing` (only what is needed for test/runtime) `dzil authordeps`(and the kitchen sink, unclear whether --author or --develop or both) `dzil authordeps --missing` (only the defective kitchen sinks) Are there other things out there targeting the same problem-domain? Is there something approaching a "cross-tooling convention" ? To summarize after the false-start yesterday: The use case in question is that I am preparing to replace Module::Install's `perl Makefile.PL && make listdeps` idiom with a pure-EUMM-based "something else". I was looking for available prior art in order to converge on *naming*. Given further searching and the replies in this thread, I am simply going to recreate the 'listdep' target more-or-less-as-is. Thanks for the thoughts! Cheers
