On Jun 13, 2007, at 9:15 PM, Adam Kennedy wrote:
Yes, it is currently in the wild (in a fairly unobtrusive way though).
As to noun vs verb, the reason that we need the key at all is
specifically because the ./Configure installation phase is turing-
complete and not static.
Well yeah, but
I like "config", because "configure" is a verb and "config" (or
"configuration") is a noun - the stage where you configure. Verbs
can't require things, but nouns can.
Eric mentioned that configure_requires is already in the wild,
though. Is that the case?
Also I hope you just accidental
# from Ken Williams
# on Tuesday 12 June 2007 09:00 pm:
>It's currently exactly analogous to the
>other prereq types, except that during the "dist" action we'll warn
>the author if there's an item in config_requires that isn't present
>in any of the other prereq fields. Earlier today I mana
What's the current state of config(ure)_requires in M::I and CPAN(PLUS)?
Do we need the full "configure_requires" or will "config_requires" do
it?
Looks like we might need to use "configure_requires", since M::I may
already be bundled in a few distros by now.
http://search.cpan.org/src/ADAMK
# from Andreas J. Koenig
# on Tuesday 12 June 2007 09:51 pm:
>The example code in the META-spec.pod erroneously says
>build_requires
fixed in r9645
> > I haven't figured out the right thing to do vis-a-vis
> automatically > adding M::B to config_requires.
>
>My current thinking about is that i
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:00:08 -0500, Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> All,
> I committed a preliminary patch for config_requires support.
Thanks! The example code in the META-spec.pod erroneously says
build_requires still. Instead of "These dependencies are not required
after the
