On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 07:17, Andreas Koenig <andreas.koenig.7os6v...@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote: > > >>>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 17:44:06 +0000, Steve Hay via modules > >>>>> <modules@perl.org> said: > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 at 17:24, Andreas Koenig > > <andreas.koenig.7os6v...@franz.ak.mind.de> wrote: > >> > >> >>>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 08:41:11 +0000, Steve Hay via modules > <modules@perl.org> said: > >> > >> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 22:26, Neil Bowers <neil.bow...@cogendo.com> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi Steve, > >> >> > >> >> Ah, I forgot to mention — you’ll need to force PAUSE to re-index the > tarball you uploaded. > >> >> > >> >> When you log in to PAUSE, in the life sidebar you’ll see "Force > >> >> Reindexing", under "Utils" (3rd section). When you click on that > >> >> you’ll get a list of the files in your upload directory. Click the > >> >> checkbox next to libapreq2-2.15.tar.gz and then click on "Reindex". > >> >> You’ll get an email within the hour with the results of the > >> >> reindexing. > >> >> > >> >> That will make your release appear in the CPAN Index. MetaCPAN will > need to reindex it as well — I’ll give them a nudge once your reindexing is > done. > >> >> > >> > >> > Ok, thanks. I see Andreas has actually done this for me already: I > >> > have an email saying that it will be reindexed in about 20min from > >> > now, so if you could give MetaCPAN a nudge for me when that's done > >> > then that would be brilliant. > >> > >> > Many thanks to you & Andreas for sorting this all out for me :-) > >> > >> You're welcome. Unfortunately we are not yet through with this. Later I > >> got an error message that the indexing failed. I suppose you received it > >> as well, but it gives no clue. At the moment I have no idea yet, how to > >> work around some built-in spell. > > > Yes, I saw the message. It ended with "Nothing in this distro has been > > indexed, because according to META.yml this package does not provide > > any modules." but comparing the META.yml with that in libapreq2-2.13 > > (which presumably is indexed since it appears on MetaCPAN?) I see > > nothing but the expected differences. In particular, they both list > > the same set of "provided modules", with just the versions bumped from > > 2.13 to 2.15. > > Too many years in between and too much code changes on PAUSE to have a > clear view what might be the cause. My current theory is that it's to do > with a weakness in this META.yml: the "provides" entries in the META.yml > all have no "file" attribute: > > : provides: > : Apache2::Request: > : version: 2.15 > : Apache2::Cookie: > : version: 2.15 > > Compare this with: > > : provides: > : Acme::Godot: > : file: lib/Acme/Godot.pm > : version: '0.001010' > > I think it's worth trying to provide the "file" with the provides > attribute next time you come around with a release.
I will certainly do my best to ensure the "file" attributes are present for the next release, whenever that might be. > > Now you ask why did it work with 2.13. I don't know, offhand, it's just > an unproven theory anyway. > > What I now did was a very dirty manual operation in the DB directly: > > : update packages set version=2.15, > : dist='S/SH/SHAY/libapreq2-2.15.tar.gz', > : file='missing file attrib in META.yaml/provides; ed. by andk' > : where dist like '%libapreq2%' ; > > So now 2.15 is indexed and no code on PAUSE was changed for that. Let me > know when I overlooked anything. Thanks for this. I'm happy to see that this release now appears on MetaCPAN, but numerous modules within it are listed as "UNAUTHORIZED" when I look at https://metacpan.org/release/SHAY/libapreq2-2.15. The previous release at https://metacpan.org/release/ISAAC/libapreq2-2.13 does not have this problem, so there is still a gremlin hiding somewhere in the system. If you think it would be easier to just do another release now, with the "file" attributes added, and all the indexing done in the usual way now that I have the correct permissions to start with then let me know; I don't want to be any trouble. (The problem is that I can't avoid being trouble to someone because these releases have to go through voting at d...@httpd.apache.org and apreq-...@httpd.apache.org before being uploaded. I was trying to avoid that just for the sake of an indexing problem on CPAN, but I'm happy to do it if this is causing you more headaches than voting for a new release would be for the folks at Apache!)
