but just want to mention that we may expect some
port maintainers follow the lazy module authors and put everything in
PERL_DEPENDS. In that case we will still get Test::* or other
modules-needed-for-tests-only in runtime dependency, and build a lot
of ports we don't need. Remember the subject
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:59:32PM -0800, Yen-Ming Lee wrote:
> Let me pick a vivid example, www/p5-Jifty, which is maintained by [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
> Sorry, tobez@, I'm not against you, just want to make sure that you want us
> (p5-* port maintainers) to do so. I really have no problem if you wa
"Yen-Ming Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Thank you for showing that you neither understand the issue nor have
> > any interest in fixing it.
> I don't know why you attacked me several times like that.
Perhaps because you responded to my attem
Sorry to quote a lot from my previous mail.
I had one wrong statement so I have to repeat the example to correct it.
2008/2/27, Yen-Ming Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> For example, module A said it needs module B, C, D, E in Makefile,
> among them, B, C are needed for run and D, E are needed for tes
2008/2/27, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > And I guess that you prefer to keep RUN_DEPENDS simple, and even
> > ignore BUILD_DEPENDS at all. The users will get some warning messages
> > for missing dependencies but it builds anyway. However, It means that
> > the port maintainers ne
Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are arguing about a relatively minor thing here, namely about whether to
> keep the knowledge about dual-life modules in bsd.perl.mk or try to deduce
> it in runtime (and by proxy, whether to use the existing *package* version
> check or to do perl *mo
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:22:06AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Dag-Erling Smorgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The rest of the ports tree checks every dependency right before building
> > > it; I don't see why Perl ports should be any diff
> And I guess that you prefer to keep RUN_DEPENDS simple, and even
> ignore BUILD_DEPENDS at all. The users will get some warning messages
> for missing dependencies but it builds anyway. However, It means that
> the port maintainers need to somehow find out that which dependencies
> are really nee
Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The rest of the ports tree checks every dependency right before building
> > it; I don't see why Perl ports should be any different.
> Er, I am not sure we understood each other here. What I was trying
2008/2/26, Yen-Ming Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/2/26, Parv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote Anton
> > Berezin thusly...
> > >
> > ...
> >
> > > I almost wish to rip off dual-life modules from our cores to
> > > simplify situation.
> >
> > Oh, that wou
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:08:23AM -0800, Yen-Ming Lee wrote:
> If we simply remove the dual-life modules from cores, it will differs
> FreeBSD-perl from other platforms and may confuse the users and the
> perl developers. For example, some scripts get everything needed and
> work well under perl 5
2008/2/26, Parv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote Anton
> Berezin thusly...
> >
> ...
>
> > I almost wish to rip off dual-life modules from our cores to
> > simplify situation.
>
> Oh, that would be most wonderful (if not only to keep only one
> (latest) version of m
2008/2/26, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Yen-Ming Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Okay, I agree to remove these Test::* from RUN_DEPENDS since they
> > should be only used for tests, however I still want to keep them in
> > BUILD_DEPENDS so that it will be easier when develop
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote Anton
Berezin thusly...
>
...
> I almost wish to rip off dual-life modules from our cores to
> simplify situation.
Oh, that would be most wonderful (if not only to keep only one
(latest) version of module)!
- Parv
--
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 04:35:13PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Why? If perl isn't installed, build that first.
> > > If perl is installed, use 'perl -M$MODULE -e "1;"' to check whether the
>
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 03:04:56PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote:
> What do people think of this? If we see positive reaction, we'll just
> temporarily switch from coding in Perl to coding in make. :-)
This very closely represents what I've been trying to formulate. Go for it!
But how will we han
Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why? If perl isn't installed, build that first.
> > If perl is installed, use 'perl -M$MODULE -e "1;"' to check whether the
> > module exists, or if a certain version is required, 'perl -e "use $MODULE
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 03:15:59PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Having discussed this at a whiteboard with lth@ (ah, the advantages of
> > face-to-face communication!), we came up with the following idea for
> > bsd.perl.mk's implementation.
> >
>
Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Having discussed this at a whiteboard with lth@ (ah, the advantages of
> face-to-face communication!), we came up with the following idea for
> bsd.perl.mk's implementation.
>
> PERL_DEPENDS. This will be the one which will be used most of the time,
> si
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 01:44:42PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A side-line comment here. One has to remember that modules which are in
> > perl core consitute moving targets:
> >
> > 1. Such a module (not only Test::More) might be in the core 5
Anton Berezin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A side-line comment here. One has to remember that modules which are in
> perl core consitute moving targets:
>
> 1. Such a module (not only Test::More) might be in the core 5.8 but not 5.6
> (or, in the near future, in core 5.10, but not in 5.8 and 5.
"Yen-Ming Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, I agree to remove these Test::* from RUN_DEPENDS since they
> should be only used for tests, however I still want to keep them in
> BUILD_DEPENDS so that it will be easier when developers want to 'make
> test' (I know that we don't do it for p5-* p
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 05:02:59PM -0800, Yen-Ming Lee wrote:
> So, there are two problems in the current perl ports, and either one
> of them will generate the overkill dependencies:
> 1. depends on the modules which are in perl core list already
A side-line comment here. One has to remember th
So step by step,
Let's take out Test::* from RUN_DEPENDS.
And discuss BUILD_DEPENDS later.
I'll examine my p5-* ports now.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 05:02:59PM -0800, Yen-Ming Lee wrote:
> 2008/2/25, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > "Yen-Ming Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
2008/2/25, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Yen-Ming Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > For Makefile.PL, all dependencies are listed in 'PREREQ_PM' so it's
> > hard to tell which ones are really needed and which ones are needed
> > only for tests.
>
> I assume that in the vast majori
--On Monday, February 25, 2008 11:21:35 +0100 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
"Yen-Ming Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[unreadable]
Please fix your MUA.
What needs to be fixed? I read his messages without any problem.
--
Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Senior Informati
"Yen-Ming Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For Makefile.PL, all dependencies are listed in 'PREREQ_PM' so it's
> hard to tell which ones are really needed and which ones are needed
> only for tests.
I assume that in the vast majority of packages that are not themselves
named p5-Test-*, none of t
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 02:45:58 -0800
"Yen-Ming Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/25, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > "Yen-Ming Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > [unreadable]
> >
> > Please fix your MUA.
>
>
> My MUA is Gmail. I can't really "fix" it.
> The only thing I c
2008/2/25, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Yen-Ming Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [unreadable]
>
> Please fix your MUA.
My MUA is Gmail. I can't really "fix" it.
The only thing I can do is to resend them with plain text format...
- resend 1 -
I guess some of these P
"Yen-Ming Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [unreadable]
Please fix your MUA.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any ma
2008/2/24, Yen-Ming Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> However, I agree to remove p5-Test-Simple from dependency since it's in
> PERL core list already.
I mean Test::More when I mentioned p5-Test-Simple. Test::More is in the core
list of PERL 5.6.2 or above.
But for other modules in p5-Test-Simple, say
2008/2/24, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> There is a ridiculous amount of p5-* ports that have completely
> unnecessary build dependencies on p5-Test-*. These package are usually
> only needed to run unit tests (cd ${WRKSRC} && make test), which *none*
> of those ports do.
>
> (ridic
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 03:32:46AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> There is a ridiculous amount of p5-* ports that have completely
> unnecessary build dependencies on p5-Test-*. These package are usually
> only needed to run unit tests (cd ${WRKSRC} && make test), which *none*
> of those ports
There is a ridiculous amount of p5-* ports that have completely
unnecessary build dependencies on p5-Test-*. These package are usually
only needed to run unit tests (cd ${WRKSRC} && make test), which *none*
of those ports do.
(ridiculous, in this case, means close to 300)
What's worse, most of t
34 matches
Mail list logo
