Re: test_requires

This is correct basically all correct.

The FreeBSD people in particular have a particularly strong reason to 
prefer having a distinction between build_requires and test_requires.

The impression I got was that this was a good idea, but because it 
wasn't immediately pressing, it needed to go through the same process as 
configure_requires:

That is, to be chewed over, and be test-implemented by a couple of the 
pieces, and to have sufficient time to digest the problem and let all 
the parts of the toolchain be sure they can support it properly.

Personally, I'd like to see configure_requires: finalised first before 
we start dealing with test_requires, so that we have the option of 
solutions that themselves leverage configure_requires:

Adam K
> We had a number of package maintainers at Oslo from Debian and FreeBSD
> so actually there was a lot of discussion about situations when
> running tests is useful versus not.  There was substantial, thoughtful
> debate about different "contexts" for testing -- when certain kinds of
> tests would be run and others not (e.g. development testing, release
> testing, packaging testing, install testing).
>
> So it wasn't at all a knee-jerk, "always test" mentality.
>
> I would characterize the outcome as "lack of consensus" on whether
> "test_requires" (etc) benefits outweigh costs, and the general
> (consensus) view was not to recommend changes unless there was a
> consensus in favor.
>
> Regards,
> David
>