On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 01:09:16PM +0200, Gabor Szabo wrote: > 1) META.yml license field is required. > > http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec.html#license > says the license field is "required" but FAIK when calling > "make dist" or "./Build dist" both EUMM and MB will happily > create META.yml files without a license field. If there is an > agreement on the field being required then I think the tools > should not create a distribution without a valid license key. > Obviously they should keep installing modules without a > license in META.yml.
I think an outright failure for what is ultimately a non-technical reason, is not a good behaviour. It could warn loudly, but I don't think it should completely fail to build. That would get annoying in sitautions when you want to Just Do It. > 2) The list of valid values should be in > http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec.html#license > instead of its current place, which is > http://search.cpan.org/dist/Module-Build/lib/Module/Build/API.pod Specs are good. > 3) Software::License http://search.cpan.org/dist/Software-License/ > has a growing list of licenses with full text in it. The list of licenses > is not the same as the values in META.yml and even in the cases > where the license seem to be the same their "short name" is not > identical. IMHO these lists should be unified. > If we can accept http://www.opensource.org/licenses as the official > list of open source licenses the short names should be coordinated > with them. Unified agreement with the wider community is good. -- Paul "LeoNerd" Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ# 4135350 | Registered Linux# 179460 http://www.leonerd.org.uk/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
