07. Enhance granularity of prerequisites
Proposal:
Add "test_requires" distinct from "build_requires". (Adam Kennedy)
This proposal is driven by the needs of the downstream distribution
packagers. At Oslo, they requested this separation to allow them to more
accurately package modules. I forget
* David Golden [2009-10-09T07:45:22]
> 07. Enhance granularity of prerequisites
Agreed. Also suggest (08. Extensibly Group Prereqs) as related and useful.
--
rjbs
On Oct 9, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote:
* David Golden [2009-10-09T07:45:22]
07. Enhance granularity of prerequisites
Agreed. Also suggest (08. Extensibly Group Prereqs) as related and
useful.
+1
Graham.
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Ricardo Signes
wrote:
> * David Golden [2009-10-09T07:45:22]
>> 07. Enhance granularity of prerequisites
>
> Agreed. Also suggest (08. Extensibly Group Prereqs) as related and useful.
Agree on both points.
David Golden wrote:
07. Enhance granularity of prerequisites
+1 in conjunction with proposal 08.
Steffen
On Oct 9, 2009, at 6:33 AM, Graham Barr wrote:
On Oct 9, 2009, at 7:16 AM, Ricardo Signes wrote:
* David Golden [2009-10-09T07:45:22]
07. Enhance granularity of prerequisites
Agreed. Also suggest (08. Extensibly Group Prereqs) as related and
useful.
+1
+1
D
David Golden wrote:
>* Should we go all the way towards making prerequisites phase-specific and
> have "configure_requires", "build_requires", "test_requires", and
> "runtime_requires"
Yes please. Currently I put things required for testing into
build_requires, but I feel bad about doing it, be
-=| David Golden, Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 07:45:22AM -0400 |=-
> 07. Enhance granularity of prerequisites
>
> Proposal:
>
> Add "test_requires" distinct from "build_requires". (Adam Kennedy)
>
> This proposal is driven by the needs of the downstream distribution
> packagers. At Oslo, they requeste
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> -=| David Golden, Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 07:45:22AM -0400 |=-
>> 07. Enhance granularity of prerequisites
>>
>> Proposal:
>>
>> Add "test_requires" distinct from "build_requires". (Adam Kennedy)
>>
>> This proposal is driven by the needs of t
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Chris Weyl wrote:
> I can also see situations where the set of test requirements isn't a
> superset of the build requirements; that is, we might need something
> to build but not to test.
>
> I guess another way to put it would be "is test just a part of the
> buil
-=| Chris Weyl, Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:19:00PM -0700 |=-
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> > Speaking as part of the group that dedicates its time on packaging
> > CPAN dists for Debian, I'd say that we don't make difference between
> > 'building' and 'testing' as the lat
11 matches
Mail list logo
