paul at city-fan.org
Thu Jul 4 11:35:04 UTC 2013
On 04/07/13 11:49, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 09:55:25AM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>> On 04/07/13 08:49, Christopher Meng wrote:
>>> Well, then just write them up in the guidelines, I follow the rules.
>> "It is recommended to buildrequire core modules explicitly,
>> because they can move between sub-packages or disappear
>> from core perl."
> 'use strict' and 'use warnings' are implemented in the interpreter.
> There exists 'strict.pm' and 'warnings.pm' modules, but all they do is
> to set internal compiler flags, causing the interpreter to emit the
> errors/warnings as it processes the code. They are just thin wrappers
> and splitting them off from core perl would make no sense.
I agree, and alluded to that before. I personally haven't included any
non-dual-lived modules as buildreqs in my own perl module packages.
However, from the point of view of consistency and simplicity, it's safe
to build-require anything that a package "use"s, "require"s etc., i.e.
it's harmless to add them, and the omission of core module buildreqs has
caused problems in the past, e.g. when Data::Dumper and Digest::MD5 were
sub-packaged. So I wouldn't be averse to a guideline that said to
include all of them, even if they were implemented in the interpreter,
as that's easier to understand and check than a potentially long list of
pragmas and other exceptions.
More information about the packaging