Randy W. Sims wrote:
Adam Kennedy wrote:
To give you some more data points, imagine the automated testing
additions applied only on Win32. How would you then specify the deps?
#187 on the TODO list for M::B is to implement the dEx[1] (Dependency
EXpression) language for inserting complicated
Adam Kennedy wrote:
To give you some more data points, imagine the automated testing
additions applied only on Win32. How would you then specify the deps?
#187 on the TODO list for M::B is to implement the dEx[1] (Dependency
EXpression) language for inserting complicated requirements in META.y
Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So while we are on the subject of META.yml, I think the dynamic_config
> approach is horrible, because it defaults to an efficient error case and
> relies on the author to fix the error, rather than defaulting to the
> inefficient correct case, and givin
While a META.yml file provides a good description of what is required,
the dependencies WILL change once the Metafile.PL runs.
Actually, that should read "will often change, 90% of the time not
turning on the dynamic_config flag in the process".
So while we are on the subject of META.yml, I t
Tyler MacDonald wrote:
How does everybody feel about making this a defined "feature" in
the META.yml spec? Something like:
optional_features:
- automated_testing:
description: Automated testing of all of this package's features
requires:
DBD::SQLite2: 0
If
I've been thinking about automated testing again. I know this is a
bad habit and I should stop it and just get on with my work, but here's
where I'm at:
Sometimes it's beneficial for an automated tester to install
additional packages (in software I'm releasing, Test::CPANpm and sql
