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

Justin Patrin wrote:

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. I build a test with complex input, the intention is to have some common test mean covering lot of cases by configuration. Then it would be easier for me to use Console_Getargs to manage this configuration input.

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. Yes, sure, in this case , it should give a big WARNING explaining to testers that they need this extra package for the tests and giving the reason why (so people don't think the tests are biased).

-- Justin Patrin