"Joshua Ferraro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 5:18 AM, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. put it in as a comment and POD string; [...] > > Which do people prefer? I'd lean towards doing (1 or 2) and 3. > I prefer that all potential dependencies be clearly stated in the Makefile.PL, > whether for optional features or not ... too many people installing Koha > will perceive an after-the-fact error message, a bug in Koha.
So you're for option 1? Any optional features should probably guard themselves against use if their dependencies aren't available and/or have their system preference clearly labelled that they won't work without an optional dependency installed, else that is a bug in Koha. Requiring modules that we're not actually going to use is also a bug in Koha. Then too many people won't see an error because they'll be deterred by the long list of dependencies and never actually try Koha. I know for some tasks, I've tested perl software with a short dependency list first, and only tried a tool with a longer dependency list harder one if the easy one fails in some way - hasn't anyone else here done that? Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha.org http://lists.koha.org/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
