including RUN_DEPENDS in TEST_DEPENDS

[Steve Wills]

On 12/18/11 18:06, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> 
> Tinderbox should not be helping to drive adoption of a ports feature per
> se.  If the intent is for users to explicitly spell out TEST_DEPENDS,
> then Tinderbox should enforce that behavior.  My understanding is that
> is the case.  If I am wrong, then I would be happy to adopt your patch.
> 

As far as I know or can find, there isn't actually anything in ports
that supports TEST_DEPENDS. It's just set in a bunch of p5- ports and
nothing errors out because nothing uses it. Tinderbox with TEST_DEPENDS
support and a patch that I posted (or one that sunpoet@ did) are the
only things that make use of it. So essentially, the ports feature in
question doesn't exist (right?). My apologies if my previous messages
gave a different impression. I guess now would be a good time to start
thinking about how ports could support testing. Perhaps I should have
done that before diving into how to get the TEST_DEPENDS installed.

Steve