Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 18:53:00 -0400 From: Steve Wills <swills@FreeBSD.org> To: Paul Schmehl <pauls@utdallas.edu> Cc: perl@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/165826: [PATCH] net/p5-Net-Nessus-XMLRPC: add missing DEPENDS Message-ID: <4F6515CC.8000807@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201203071740.q27HeCFT018574@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <201203071740.q27HeCFT018574@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/07/12 12:40, Paul Schmehl wrote: > > According to the CPAN page > (<http://search.cpan.org/~kost/Net-Nessus-XMLRPC-0.30/lib/Net/Nessus/XMLRPC.pm>), > only IO::Socket::SSL is required (and in FreeBSD, Net::SSL is a RUN_DEPENDS > for IO::Socket::SSL. anyway.) > > "'This CPAN module uses LWP for communicating with Nessus over XMLRPC via > https. Therefore, make sure that you have Net::SSL (provided by > Crypt::SSLeay): http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Crypt::SSLeay or > IO::Socket::SSL: http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?IO::Socket::SSL" > > If you want to argue that LWP is a RUN_DEPENDS, I can see that, but why > HTML::Message and XML::Simple? Why does the author think these other > modules are required? > > I need more information before making this change. Unfortunately, the documentation doesn't match the code. I found these by running "make test" with just the package installed (in a chroot). Looking at the code: ./work/Net-Nessus-XMLRPC-0.30/lib/Net/Nessus/XMLRPC.pm:use HTTP::Request::Common; hence the dep on HTML::Message. Similarly: ./work/Net-Nessus-XMLRPC-0.30/lib/Net/Nessus/XMLRPC.pm:use XML::Simple; hence the dep on XML::Simple. > Even if these other modules were required, they wouldn't be BUILD_DEPENDS, > they would be RUN_DEPENDS, so the patch would need to be corrected for that. The "build" will complain that these modules are missing at build time: ===> Configuring for p5-Net-Nessus-XMLRPC-0.30 Warning: prerequisite HTTP::Request::Common 0 not found. Warning: prerequisite LWP::UserAgent 0 not found. Warning: prerequisite XML::Simple 0 not found. I like to avoid those warnings so that if, for example, an update to the module requires a new module I can see it easily instead of comparing that list to the RUN_DEPENDS to see if any are missing. >From a package standpoint it makes no difference if they're also BUILD_DEPENDS because they're going to be RUN_DEPENDS anyway and from a ports (building from source) perspective, it's cleaner, easier to see new depends, let's you run "make test" if you want and less worrisome for the uninformed. Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F6515CC.8000807>