On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Victor Wagner <vitus@wagner.pp.ru> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 12:59:03 +0300
> Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 1) Better to raise more meaningful error when IPC::Run is absent.
>>
>> This has been discussed before, and as far as I recall the current
>> behavior has been concluded as being fine. That's where
>> --enable-tap-tests becomes meaningful.
>
> Really, it is not so hard to add configure checks for perl modules.
> And we need to test not only for IPC::Run, but for Test::More too,
> because some Linux distributions put modules which come with perl into
> separate package.
The last time we discussed about that on this list we concluded that
it was not really necessary to have such checks, for one it makes the
code more simple, and because this is leveraged by the presence of
--enable-tap-tests, tests which can get actually costly with
check-world. But this is digressing the subject of this thread, which
deals with the fact of having recovery tests integrated in core...
--
Michael