Re: library dependencies and unit/integration testing

[Jonas Bernoulli <jonas@bernoulli.cc>]

2010/3/2 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>:
> Tom> ;;; Package-Requires: ((ruby-mode "1.0") (inf-ruby "2.0"))
>
> Jonas thinks this is best left outside the package.  I disagree
> slightly: I think a compromise is best, where the package author can
> specify the dependencies but the repository maintainer can override
> them.  Since Emacs doesn't provide any of these facilities by
> convention, perhaps it's time to set them up now.

This was a misunderstanding. I am all for package maintainers specifying
which versions of the dependencies are required.

I was talking about the difficulties of knowing if library X is at version Y
just because the header of library X (!!!) says the version of itself is Y.
Sometimes (more like: commonly) multiple revisions are released
under the same "version".

This is not so much a problem if we agree that the revision where a
particular version string first appeared IS that version. However if you
do not have the full history available it is not possible to determine
when a version string first appeared.

So THIS should be done on the mirror/elpa because the user simply
can't.

It really is a detail. Maybe not unimportant but the other question is
more importent now.

Should authors specify what versions of dependencies are required?

I would say: definitely yet (but they should not be forced to do it).

> I was thinking of using the emacs interpreter in batch mode to run only
> a few tests in series, isolated from the testing agent in a whole new
> process.  For the majority of libraries that's enough.

Still you would have to do it using a user with very restricted privileges.

-- Jonas