including RUN_DEPENDS in TEST_DEPENDS

[Joe Marcus Clarke]

On 12/17/11 5:39 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
> 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.

I don't think this is necessarily true for all tests.  Some tests may
just validate a checksum or check the build environment for errors.
We're explicit in bringing over those BUILD_DEPENDS that are also
required for runtime.  I think we should make porters do the same for
TEST_DEPENDS.

Joe

-- 
PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc