Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

use Perl

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Build.PL versus Makefile.PL More | Login | Reply

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to use the classic discussion system instead. If you login, you can remember this preference.

current standard (Score:1)

by link (3402) on 2007.02.06 18:03 (#53073) Homepage Journal

Surely whatever about the future ExtUtils::MakeMaker is the standard now.

Why is handling testing dependencies best done in the Makefile.PL/Build.PL? What are the advantages over skipping tests?

Reply to This
- Re: (Score:1)
  
  by chromatic (983)
  
  Why is handling testing dependencies best done in the Makefile.PL/Build.PL?
  
  I believe that's so that META.yml can express dependencies required for the build properly.
  
  What are the advantages over skipping tests?
  
  CPANTS penalizes you for not shipping POD checking tests, but their value to anyone but developers is minimal, for example.
- Re: (Score:1)
  
  by Alias (5735)
  
  > Why is handling testing dependencies best done in the Makefile.PL/Build.PL?
  
  It's not so much "testing" as "checking".
  
  In multi-platform source packages (like CPAN packages) the dependencies of a package require turing-completeness to determine. That is, a dependency on your platform might be different to the dependencies on some other platform.
  
  Part of the job of the Configure phase (Makefile.PL and Build.PL) is to resolve the Complete Dependencies down to a set of Static Dependencies. That static list ca

Get More Comments

Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.