Re: Re: cvs: pear /PEAR_Command_Packaging/tests/make-rpm-spec test1.outtest1.phpttest_option_rpm-depname.out test_option_rpm-depname.phpt
test_option_rpm-pkgname.outtest_option_rpm-pkgname.phpttest_option_rpm-release.out test_option_rpm-re

On 2/16/06, bertrand Gugger <bertrand@toggg.com> wrote: > Greg Beaver wrote: > > bertrand Gugger wrote: > > > > > >>Are you dependent on Net_SMTP then ? > > > > > > Hi Bertrand, > > > > Not to jump Tim on this one, but he committed in tests, which have > > little to do with dependencies. :) > > > > Greg > > Do you mean tests are allowed to require a package without introducing a > dependency ? > I ask it as I have a similar case and up to now I was reluctant to > introduce some more dependency just for tests, so I did not do it. > It's nice for me if it's allowed. If a test has a dependency that a package doesn't have I'd say that's kind of strange. But regardless of why, if a test has a dependency that the package does not have, there is no added dependency on the package. That simply doesn't make sense. It should just be noted in the test (perhaps as part of the output) that a certain package is needed. -- Justin Patrin