Re: Looking for prior art on conventions for dep-listing

2016-03-01 Thread Olivier Mengué 
2016-03-01 21:43 GMT+01:00 Peter Rabbitson :

> Are there other things out there targeting the same problem-domain? Is
> there something approaching a "cross-tooling convention" ?
>
>
>
cpanfile-dump

https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/Module-CPANfile/script/cpanfile-dump

Re: Looking for prior art on conventions for dep-listing

2016-03-01 Thread Leon Timmermans 
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Peter Rabbitson  wrote:

> I didn't phrase my question correctly. What I am after is:
>
> Imagine you get a random checkout of some dist and/or extract a tarball.
> Aside from running `perl Makefile.PL` and visually checking what is
> missing, there is nothing semi-standard that will answer "what do I feed to
> | cpanm, so that prove -l will work".
>
> Hope this makes more sense.
>

The first complication there is that our dependency resolution is
inherently a two-phase process due to configure-requires. The second
complication is that systems like dzil make it a three stage process (and
possibly so do other systems). I agree a better way to deal with this would
be nice, but I don't expect it to look like you want it to look.

Leon

Re: Looking for prior art on conventions for dep-listing

2016-03-01 Thread David Golden 
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Peter Rabbitson  wrote:

> Imagine you get a random checkout of some dist and/or extract a tarball.
> Aside from running `perl Makefile.PL` and visually checking what is
> missing, there is nothing semi-standard that will answer "what do I feed to
> | cpanm, so that prove -l will work".
>
>
cpanm --installdeps .

You can do "cpan ." but it installs the module if tests succeed.



-- 
David Golden  Twitter/IRC/Github: @xdg

Re: Looking for prior art on conventions for dep-listing

2016-03-01 Thread Peter Rabbitson 

On 03/01/2016 10:14 PM, David Golden wrote:

cpanm had --scan-deps, though it's now listed as deprecated.


I didn't phrase my question correctly. What I am after is:

Imagine you get a random checkout of some dist and/or extract a tarball. 
Aside from running `perl Makefile.PL` and visually checking what is 
missing, there is nothing semi-standard that will answer "what do I feed 
to | cpanm, so that prove -l will work".


Hope this makes more sense.

Re: Looking for prior art on conventions for dep-listing

2016-03-01 Thread Neil Bowers 
> cpanm had --scan-deps, though it's now listed as deprecated.
> 
> And CPAN has plenty of these sorts of things, eg. Perl::PrereqScanner

App::Midgen and the midgen script were designed to determine and list prereqs 
of different types, in the formats expected by various things:

https://metacpan.org/release/App-Midgen

Re: Looking for prior art on conventions for dep-listing

2016-03-01 Thread David Golden 
cpanm had --scan-deps, though it's now listed as deprecated.

And CPAN has plenty of these sorts of things, eg. Perl::PrereqScanner

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Peter Rabbitson  wrote:

> I am currently aware of the Module::Install-specific targets of
> `make listdeps`  (only what is needed to satisfy test/runtime prereqs)
> `make listalldeps`   (everything the metadata knows about)
>
> There is the dzil alternative of:
> `dzil listdeps` (everything)
> `dzil listdeps --missing`   (only what is needed for test/runtime)
> `dzil authordeps`   (and the kitchen sink, unclear whether
> --author or --develop or both)
> `dzil authordeps --missing` (only the defective kitchen sinks)
>
>
> Are there other things out there targeting the same problem-domain? Is
> there something approaching a "cross-tooling convention" ?
>
> Cheers
>



-- 
David Golden  Twitter/IRC/Github: @xdg