On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 07:22:04AM -0700, David Wheeler wrote:
> On Friday, September 13, 2002, at 06:25 AM, Johan Vromans wrote:
>
> >Tchk. I think it's quite nice and powerful to be able to download an
> >arbitrary module's .tar.gz and get it going with the simple "perl
> >Makefile.PL; make al
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And if you're not using a CPAN shell every module install is going
> to be a chore anyway.
Tchk. I think it's quite nice and powerful to be able to download an
arbitrary module's .tar.gz and get it going with the simple "perl
Makefile.PL; make all
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:32:10PM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> Perhaps we are looking at this from the wrong direction. Instead of
> installing bundled modules, perhaps a shell should be able to specify that
> certain dependencies are available only for testing. That way, users
> wouldn't neces
On Sunday 28 July 2002 02:52, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:19:51 -0700, Johan Vromans wrote:
> > This idea appeals to me, but I have thought of two drawbacks. The first
> > is minor, and it's that I don't think Test::Builder should have special
> > logic for installation. It
On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 10:15 PM, Johan Vromans wrote:
> My hesitation in doing this is that the module does not need Test::*
> for its operation, just for the IVP.
Given what the Test::* modules are for, I think that this is common. And
since they're small and won't waste much in the
Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's probably easier to just make it a normal prerequisite.
My hesitation in doing this is that the module does not need Test::*
for its operation, just for the IVP.
But I tend to agree that making any special provisions for this
purpose is proba
On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 09:55:38AM -0700, chromatic wrote:
> > One of the problems I have with using Test::Builder is that I want to
> > distribute packages to systems that do not (necessarily) have a decent version
> > of Test::* installed. Now it is easy to include a copy of a suitable version
>
Janek Schleicher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A good solution from my point of view would be,
> if you could use Makefile.PL to do this job,
> perhaps similar to
> 'PREREQ_PM' => { ... }
> a
> 'PREREQ_TEST_PM' => { ... }
> statement,
> warning the user that the test can't be done without a speci
Chromatic wrote at Sat, 27 Jul 2002 18:55:38 +0200:
> On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:19:51 -0700, Johan Vromans wrote:
>
>> One of the problems I have with using Test::Builder is that I want to distribute
>packages to
>> systems that do not (necessarily) have a decent version of Test::* installed. Now
chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:19:51 -0700, Johan Vromans wrote:
> This idea appeals to me, but I have thought of two drawbacks. The first is
> minor, and it's that I don't think Test::Builder should have special logic for
> installation. It seems that this would
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:19:51 -0700, Johan Vromans wrote:
> One of the problems I have with using Test::Builder is that I want to
> distribute packages to systems that do not (necessarily) have a decent version
> of Test::* installed. Now it is easy to include a copy of a suitable version
> of Tes
Folks,
One of the problems I have with using Test::Builder is that I want to
distribute packages to systems that do not (necessarily) have a decent
version of Test::* installed. Now it is easy to include a copy of a
suitable version of Test::Builder with the package (provided it is not
too big).
12 matches
Mail list logo
