-=| Chris Weyl, Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 01:19:00PM -0700 |=- > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Damyan Ivanov <d...@modsoftsys.com> wrote: > > Speaking as part of the group that dedicates its time on packaging > > CPAN dists for Debian, I'd say that we don't make difference between > > 'building' and 'testing' as the later is always part of the former in > > the Debian package build. > > With RPMs, we don't currently have a mechanisim to differentiate > between build and test requires, either. However, the distinction is > a valuable one, I think... We're currently looking at ways to enable > running tests post-build/install, for QA purposes... This would help > in that matter. > > I can also see situations where the set of test requirements isn't a > superset of the build requirements; that is, we might need something > to build but not to test. > > I guess another way to put it would be "is test just a part of the > build process, or is test a process of its own?"
Agreed. Sorry for making my comments sound like I am against separation. > One key I would like to see added would be something along the lines > of "optional_test_requires" or "test_recommends", etc. There are > many, many packages that skip tests if some other non-related module > isn't already installed (e.g. DBIx::Class and > DateTime::Format::MySQL). It would be _very_ useful to know what > additional modules are needed to enable so-called optional tests of > this nature... As per policy we're almost certainly going to have to > BR them for the build, having ready metadata to assist with this will > save human cycles. Agreed. We use to watch the build log and add build-dependencies. Having some machine-aid to this would certainly be helpful. -- dam
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
