including RUN_DEPENDS in TEST_DEPENDS
steve at mouf.net
Sat Dec 17 17:39:39 EST 2011
On 12/17/11 13:34, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> On 12/13/11 11:28 PM, Steve Wills wrote:
>> 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.
More information about the tinderbox-list