On Apr 1, 2005, at 2:55 PM, Christopher H. Laco wrote:
If build, test, and install are considered the critical path, why was
Build/make never changed to simple run "test" always as part of the
builds success or failure?
Just curious. In a way, I'd be much happier if 'perl Build' or 'make'
outri
Ken Williams wrote:
On Mar 30, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 05:53:37PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
Should we completely open this up so that requires/recommends/conflicts
can be applied to any action?
install_recommends => ...
testcover_requires => ...
etc.
Th
Ken Williams wrote:
Since the 'build', 'test', and 'install' actions are considered the
"critical path" for installing a module, I think it makes sense to warn
(not die) during "perl Build.PL" when one of their
required/recommended/conflict dependencies aren't met. Thereafter, only
die/warn wh
On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:44 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet
mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete
roll-back (eg. don't
On Mar 30, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 05:53:37PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
Should we completely open this up so that
requires/recommends/conflicts
can be applied to any action?
install_recommends => ...
testcover_requires => ...
etc.
This sounds useful an
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 05:53:37PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> Should we completely open this up so that requires/recommends/conflicts
> can be applied to any action?
>
> install_recommends => ...
> testcover_requires => ...
> etc.
This sounds useful and solves a lot of problems at one sweep.
On Mar 30, 2005, at 4:53 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:
Should we completely open this up so that
requires/recommends/conflicts can be applied to any action?
install_recommends => ...
testcover_requires => ...
etc.
I like it. But for some reason I find it a little scary.
Doing this would require a lit
Ken Williams wrote:
On a related note, we should probably finally make the
prerequisite-specification system treat the requirement level (requires
vs. recommends vs. conflicts) and requirement scope (build vs. test vs.
runtime) as completely orthogonal. Currently there's no such thing as
build
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 06:12:37AM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> Both. We could fail by default, but allow an option to force it to
> ignore missing or conflicting dependencies:
Duh. Why didn't I think of that? Of course!
Clayton, Nik wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet
mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete
roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed
requir
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> > A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet
> > mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete
> > roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed
> > require
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet
mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete
roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed
r
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:33:48PM -0500, Randy W. Sims wrote:
> A quickie sample implementation to add more meat. I didn't apply yet
> mainly because I'm wondering if we shouldn't bail and do a complete
> roll-back (eg. don't generate a Build script) if there are any failed
> requirements. Or s
Michael G Schwern wrote:
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:43:30PM -0600, Ken Williams wrote:
I think there's one really good argument in favor of splitting it out
and one really good argument against.
In favor: if we knew the subset of build_requires that were actually
needed for testing, then it woul
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 04:43:30PM -0600, Ken Williams wrote:
> I think there's one really good argument in favor of splitting it out
> and one really good argument against.
>
> In favor: if we knew the subset of build_requires that were actually
> needed for testing, then it would be easier for
On Mar 28, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:
I think someone had proposed a year or two ago that there should be a
test_requires options and I argued against it. Now, I think maybe it
was a good idea; especially, since the number of extra testing modules
being used have increased a lot over
On Mar 28, 2005, at 4:21 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:
I think someone had proposed a year or two ago that there should be a
test_requires options and I argued against it. Now, I think maybe it
was a good idea; especially, since the number of extra testing modules
being used have increased a lot over
17 matches
Mail list logo
