On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 06:59:59PM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > > There is no build_requires or recommends equivalent in MakeMaker, nor will > > there be, > > Too bad. Seems to me it would make sense to have MakeMaker support > adding the tags to META.yml.
Yes, it would make perfect sense except that seemingly innocent changes to MakeMaker have a tendency to break things which use MakeMaker because it is inherently fragile. For example, I reworked the way SIGNATURE and META.yml are created making them be created only in the distdir, not the source directory. This didn't break anything. What DID break Module::Install was that I added a "distsign" target inside the Makefile. Turns out MI had its own distsign target which it added to the Makefile. Collision. There's too many things which can go wrong. There's too many dependent modules to check. Its too much work for me. This is why I've instituted the policy of no new features. I can do this because there is a much better outlet for new features: Module::Build. I also have sneaky reasons for this policy. * less features in MakeMaker gives people more reasons to use Module::Build * less features in MakeMaker means less work for me which gives me more time to work on MB I added the rudimentary META.yml support to quickly populate CPAN with module meta-data and bootstrap the concept. Its out on its own now. > Whether things that are required for *testing* belong in > build_requires really depends on whether you view testing as an > integral part of the build process. This is something that is likely > to depend on the *builder*, not the module author, which is, in my > mind, the only argument (and a good one) for a separate test_requires. > The distinction between build_recommends and and a possible > test_recommends is more ambiguous. I agree with this, however I don't really see the ambiguity about test_recommends.
