From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 26 02:24:05 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5540116A400; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:24:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from clsung@FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw) Received: from FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw (freebsd.cs.nctu.edu.tw [140.113.17.209]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1322213C467; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:24:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from clsung@FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557417E989; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:05:57 +0800 (CST) Received: from FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zq-WIVBM9i93; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:05:48 +0800 (CST) Received: by FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw (Postfix, from userid 1038) id 453027E970; Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:05:48 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:05:48 +0800 From: Cheng-Lung Sung To: Yen-Ming Lee Message-ID: <20080226020547.GA96900@FreeBSD.csie.nctu.edu.tw> References: <86zltpzrxt.fsf@ds4.des.no> <759236930802242324o614598d1i1a8ca3cc8c12478c@mail.gmail.com> <86prulibf4.fsf@ds4.des.no> <759236930802250245j646f5be5k8382bedbfb2a7c1e@mail.gmail.com> <868x19i6ky.fsf@ds4.des.no> <759236930802251702h694c4f5bn2c7c87c7c47c7cc@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=big5 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <759236930802251702h694c4f5bn2c7c87c7c47c7cc@mail.gmail.com> X-Fingerprint: E0BC 57F9 F44B 46C6 DB53 8462 F807 89F3 956E 8BC1 X-Public-Key: http://freefall.FreeBSD.org/~clsung/pubring.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Dag-Erling =?big5?B?U23I+3JncmF2?= , perl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port dependencies on p5-Test-* X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:24:05 -0000 So step by step, Let's take out Test::* from RUN_DEPENDS. And discuss BUILD_DEPENDS later. I'll examine my p5-* ports now. On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 05:02:59PM -0800, Yen-Ming Lee wrote: > 2008/2/25, Dag-Erling SmÈûrgrav : > > "Yen-Ming Lee" writes: > > > For Makefile.PL, all dependencies are listed in 'PREREQ_PM' so it's > > > hard to tell which ones are really needed and which ones are needed > > > only for tests. > > > > I assume that in the vast majority of packages that are not themselves > > named p5-Test-*, none of the Test::* modules are required. > > > > The sed script I posted may remove too much from Makefile.PL, and > > Build.PL, but that doesn't actually matter as long as the port's > > BUILD_DEPENDS and RUN_DEPENDS are correct; it only means that > > Makefile.PL won't verify that they're there. The ports tree's > > dependency system guarantees that they are, and even if they aren't, the > > build will fail. > > > > Okay, I agree to remove these Test::* from RUN_DEPENDS since they > should be only used for tests, however I still want to keep them in > BUILD_DEPENDS so that it will be easier when developers want to 'make > test' (I know that we don't do it for p5-* perl, but I do). > > So, there are two problems in the current perl ports, and either one > of them will generate the overkill dependencies: > 1. depends on the modules which are in perl core list already > 2. put the dependency-for-test-only (say Test::*) in RUN_DEPENDS > > I wrote a script to catch both problems, and I'll update it daily here: > http://people.freebsd.org/~leeym/p5-lint.txt > > To simplify the dependency tree for p5- ports, we should start with that list. > > For case 1, someone prefers to use the latest version while someone > prefer to simply the dependency. I myself prefer the latter. I guess > it needs further discussion to make a consensus. > > And, note for case 1: If some modules are needed for some features in > newer version, it should use versioned dependency instead and specify > the minimum version needed. My script will check with Module::CoreList > for that specific version. > > For case 2, I guess the consensus is to keep RUN_DEPENDS as simple as > possible, right? > > Regards, > -- > Yen-Ming Lee -- Alan Cheng-Lung Sung - clsung@