[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Peacock) writes:
> In order to map 5.006001 to v5.6.1, all numeric versions (like 1.90)
> are parsed as if there were three places to the right of the decimal
> point. So 1.90 is equivalent to 1.900.0 for comparison purposes, which
> is larger than 1.95.1.
This is confusin
Dominique Dumont wrote:
This is confusing. Shouldn't 1.90 be mapped to 1.090.000 ?
I know it is confusing and it's not my fault; when 5.6.0 was released, the
documentation specifically stated that 5.6.0 === 5.006000. Besides, you haven't
though this through; numeric versions have to [ultimat
Howdy,
I'm working on a series of modules for a client. We developers need a
bunch of test modules, but OPS will want to just install the module
without running tests.
I've been putting the test module requirements into `build_requires`:
configure_requires => { 'Module::Build' => '0.27
So, can we finally have a `test_requires` option? If so, I'd be happy to
dig up some tuits and send in a patch.
This would be very helpful indeed. Extra points for "test_recommends" for
modules like Test::Pod, Test::Pod::Coverage, etc.
Randy
--
# from David E. Wheeler
# on Tuesday 20 May 2008:
>So, can we finally have a `test_requires` option? If so, I'd be happy
> to dig up some tuits and send in a patch.
IIRC, previous discussions of this sort of thing have tended to
feature-creep toward having also test_recommends and various othe
Hi!
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:29:53AM -0700, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> I've been putting the test module requirements into `build_requires`:
> ...
> But this will be annoying for OPS, since it's not the build that requires
> those Test:: modules; it's testing.
>
> So, can we finally have a `tes
# from Thomas Klausner
# on Tuesday 20 May 2008:
>The general opinion was that three *requires are enough, especially as
>testing seems to be seen as an integral part of the build process.
This is the opinion of a QA get-together, so I'll guess that it is
backed by the logic of "why wouldn't you
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Eric Wilhelm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # from Thomas Klausner
>>The general opinion was that three *requires are enough, especially as
>>testing seems to be seen as an integral part of the build process.
>
> This is the opinion of a QA get-together, so I'll guess
The general opinion was that three *requires are enough, especially as
testing seems to be seen as an integral part of the build process.
Perhaps if there were a "build_recommends", it might be. As it stands, a user
often won't know that optional tests are going to be skipped until they see the
John Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know it is confusing and it's not my fault; when 5.6.0 was released,
> the documentation specifically stated that 5.6.0 === 5.006000.
> Besides, you haven't though this through; numeric versions have to
> [ultimately] be compared as numbers (because the
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Adam Kennedy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I'd like to see configure_requires: finalised first before we
> start dealing with test_requires, so that we have the option of solutions
> that themselves leverage configure_requires:
+1
Reminds me I need to
# from David Golden on Tuesday 20 May 2008:
>On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Adam Kennedy
>> Personally, I'd like to see configure_requires: finalised first
>> before we start dealing with test_requires, so that we have the
>> option of solutions that themselves leverage configure_requires:
>
>+1
12 matches
Mail list logo
