On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Zbigniew Lukasiak <zzb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there, > > I've noticed two reactions to this proposal: it is great if it could > be done right and it is currently too difficult. This leads me to > following: how about a lib_requires (or requires_lib) - with identical > semantics as Devel::CheckLib. Now Devel::CheckLib is used in > Makefile.PL - but it means that this information about library > prerequisites is not available to tools analysing the source code like > installation tools, cpan search, dependency viewers or PAR. > lib_requires would be kind of half step of the original proposal - > after it is accommodated we could think about loading another external > mapping between the library name and the OS package. The advantage of > this is that the semantics can be defined quite precisely if only > Devel::CheckLib has clear semantics, but it is already a recommended > tool so I assume that it is. > > I know I am a bit late to the party - so I don't insist on doing that > in this current cycle - but I would like to put this under discussion > and perhaps include it in the next change cycle.
I like this idea. (David Cantrell, are you on this list? Thoughts?). I'm open to further discussion for this cycle if the semantics are clear enough. Even if not for this cycle, I do want to keep it on the list for next round. David
