Hi
Kent Fredric has proposed 2 alternate patches to my most recent
Makefile.PL for Tree::DAG_Node (V 1.28).
The point is to completely remove the need for an end-user of this - and
of other - modules to have Test::Pod installed.
It's not clear from these patches, but the upper part of both is under
TEST_REQUIRES, and he warns me against switching to BUILD_REQUIRES.
a.patch
--- Makefile.PL.3 2016-03-01 14:41:14.147052412 +1300
+++ Makefile.PL.1 2016-03-01 14:39:20.713057559 +1300
@@ -38,7 +38,6 @@
'File::Spec' => 3.40,
'File::Temp' => 0.19,
'Test::More' => 1.001014,
- 'Test::Pod' => 1.48,
},
VERSION_FROM => 'lib/Tree/DAG_Node.pm',
);
b.patch
--- Makefile.PL.3 2016-03-01 14:41:14.147052412 +1300
+++ Makefile.PL.2 2016-03-01 14:40:09.053055429 +1300
@@ -38,7 +38,6 @@
'File::Spec' => 3.40,
'File::Temp' => 0.19,
'Test::More' => 1.001014,
- 'Test::Pod' => 1.48,
},
VERSION_FROM => 'lib/Tree/DAG_Node.pm',
);
@@ -67,6 +66,13 @@
web =>
'https://github.com/ronsavage/Tree-DAG_Node',
},
},
+ prereqs => {
+ develop => {
+ requires => {
+ 'Test::Pod' => 1.48
+ }
+ }
+ }
};
}
Clearly a.patch is safest because it's minimalist. But is b.patch 100%
safe? Neither he nor I know. Does anybody?
TIA.
--
Ron Savage - savage.net.au
