Re: Declaring optional dependencies

> And this presumes that the person running the install knows enough to > "consider." Which is fine if you're coding Perl. Not so obvious if you are > trying to use someone else's package, which may silently fall back to > crippled mode "because it's better than nothing". Nowhere in the distribu

Re: Declaring optional dependencies

On 09-Nov-16 19:11, Dan Book wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Timothe Litt > wrote: > > cpan and cpanm seem to handle 'recommended' differently. IIRC, > neither > defaults to installing 'recommended' modules. > > > Sadly, this is correct and in fact

Re: Declaring optional dependencies

On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Timothe Litt wrote: > > cpan and cpanm seem to handle 'recommended' differently. IIRC, neither > defaults to installing 'recommended' modules. > Sadly, this is correct and in fact (as far as I know) CPAN.pm still handles recommended prereqs completely wrongly if y

Re: Declaring optional dependencies

It is my opinion that (most) optional prereqs should at least be listed in the 'suggests' category of prereqs, to at least allow for static inspection tools (such as CPANdeps) can be aware of a potential relationship. Regarding Timothe's observations that optional prereqs are a swamp -- yes, but l

Re: Declaring optional dependencies

On 09-Nov-16 09:07, David Cantrell wrote: > I recently broke Catalyst::Devel when I uploaded a dodgy version of > Devel::CheckOS. Personally I don't like Catalyst and consider this to > have been a service to humanity, but I understand that some people > differ on this :-) > > Thing is, my code doe

Declaring optional dependencies

I recently broke Catalyst::Devel when I uploaded a dodgy version of Devel::CheckOS. Personally I don't like Catalyst and consider this to have been a service to humanity, but I understand that some people differ on this :-) Thing is, my code doesn't show up as a dependency in CPANdeps. Turns o