On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 05:23:33PM -0800, Mo DeJong wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2001, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Many systems come with Perl, many do not. The problem shows
> up when you depend on having that piece of software
> installed before yours will work. This is even more
> critical when it comes to your tests cases. Suppose
> you run the test cases and they all fail. What is
> at fault? Is the version of Perl (or whatever,
> I am not attacking Perl here) installed on the system
> broken? Is Perl installed at all? Is it a different
> version than your test cases expected? Is it your code?
I just have a hard time believing that systems where subversion will
be *built* and *tested* dont have perl. I understand systems where
subversion will be installed not having perl, but development systems???
But I absolutely agree with not placing requirements on specific perl
modules not included in core. Thats definitely a no-no.
> > It seems like you're worrying about extreme edge-cases.
> I don't think they are edge cases. If you want to
> depend on Perl then it should be included in the
> source tree.
Well why dont we include the source for gcc, make, autoconf,
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:25 2006