On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 11:27:09AM +0200, Johan Vromans wrote: > "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > That seems wrong. Every module you install contains lists of > > dependencies, one list for runtime, one for build-time. > > > > The CPAN shell won?t ask questions about missing dependencies, > > that is true. But why does that matter? You have the dependency > > lists anyway. > > Let's try to work out an example. You have a build system, and a > series of production systems. The production systems need module > Foo::Simple. > > Module Foo::Simple requires Foo::Heavy at run-time, and > Test::Ridiculous at build time. > > A mere build (not install, just build) of Foo::Simple causes > Foo::Heavy and Test::Ridiculous to be installed on the build system[1]. > After install of Foo::Simple, three new modules got added to the build > system. > > If Test::Ridiculous were not installed, I could chase down the perl > installation to find out what files were added[2], and distribute > these to the production systems. Now I have to manually weed out the > files that are not needed for production. > > As I said, it increases the maintenance load.
This is true if you're installing all modules required in one block. Whereas I believe that the counter arguments come from people who are considering the case of packaging up each module in turn, and marking that package as only depending on the packages (modules) that it stated as run-time requirements, basing that dependency information on the metadata from the modules (instead of what got installed) Nicholas Clark
