including RUN_DEPENDS in TEST_DEPENDS
steve at mouf.net
Sat Dec 17 19:30:50 EST 2011
On 12/17/11 18:09, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> 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.
I suspect there are cases like that, but I think the vast majority of
tests that I've encountered do require running the software and having
RUN_DEPENDS, so I'd rather optimize for the more common case.
> 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
Isn't the reason for that related to packages? That is, a more practical
concern, rather than simply for the sake of being explicit? I'd rather
make it easier to use TEST_DEPENDS so that it gets adopted more easily.
More information about the tinderbox-list