Re: [Module::Build] MBC possible missing dependency

[Jim C. <jc...@di...>]

Randy W. Sims wrote:

> On 11/25/2003 2:45 PM, Jim Cromie wrote:
>
>> from 3,4 I infer that  perl Makefile.PL doesnt automatically 
>> invalidate blib
>> by Makefile being newer than blib.
>>
>> while that might be a feature (of really knowing nothing changed), it 
>> could also
>> be a mising dependency.
>
>
> AFAICT, this is the correct behaviour. There is no dependence on the 
> produced 'Makefile' since it will never, ever, under any condition, 
> change. It's a simple pass-thru makefile with no variables or anything 
> else that could change from one run to another. But do note that if 
> you touch anything in lib, it will correctly be copied to blib.


AHH - Duh - youre absolutely right.

>>
>> This could be an " Ouch!,  Well - dont do that " problem,
>> but I thought it worth flagging.
>
>
> The arguments you pass in get stored in '_build/build_params' and not 
> in the 'Makefile'. Again, 'Makefile' never changes, so it does not 
> need to be listed in the dependencies.
>
> I don't see how any problems could arise here. Have you run in to any 
> problems related to this behaviour?


only problem is that Ive gotten into the habit of letting 'make test' do 
the make for me.
this works with perl builds, and with Makefile based CPAN modules.

So reframing things, there seems to be a missing dependency in Build 
when testing things
that havent been, um 'built' isnt quite the right word here..

Build test can proceed w/o Build ''    I'll (later) try and see if I can 
concoct a real failing
use-case for this.

thx.

>
>> tia,
>> jimc
>
>
> Regards,
> Randy.
>
> .
>