including RUN_DEPENDS in TEST_DEPENDS

[Steve Wills]

On 12/17/11 13:34, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> On 12/13/11 11:28 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While doing some testing I thought that it may make sense to include the
>> RUN_DEPENDS in TEST_DEPENDS. Here's a patch which does that. Comments?
> 
> Is it always the case that tests require runtime dependencies?  And if
> so, should those not be listed in TEST_DEPENDS?  I would think that
> users not properly setting TEST_DEPENDS would be a problem and not
> something we'd want to hide.

I was thinking that testing the software naturally requires running the
software so having the RUN_DEPENDS is necessary and having to state them
twice is redundant.

Steve