Re: Possible bug?
On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:23 AM, David Golden wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Fields, Christopher J > wrote: >> https://github.com/bioperl/bioperl-network >> >> I can work on a minimal test case. If needed I can also fork the specific >> github code and try to weed out the problem. > > No need to do the test case. I was able to load the bioperl > dependency chain and see it directly. :-) > > I have two reactions: > > (a) Module::Build is doing it wrong -- in that it will "normalize" an > undefined version to "0" and leave it in. The CPAN::Meta::Spec v2 > says that the version metadata should only exist if a $VERSION string > exists, but Module::Build does not produce v2 metadata and the v1.4 > spec doesn't say anything about the subkeys of "provides". > > (b) PAUSE is being too nitpicky. An undefined $VERSION is effectively > treated as a "0" in code, so it doesn't really matter too much if the > metadata says "0" or omits the key. > > Nevertheless, in a battle between M::B and PAUSE, clearly PAUSE should > win. (I get to wear both hats: I'm PAUSE admin *and* M::B > co/ex-maintainer, so I'm indifferent.) Andreas fixed this for PAUSE and the dist successfully reindexed, but it's definitely worth fixing in M::B as well (the indexing issue was raised on modules@perl as well). > I'll commit a fix to the repo and if/when a new M::B maintainer > volunteers (or I'm forced by p5p to do another release), then it will > go live. Thanks! > I do encourage adding $VERSION to the bioperl code (it looks like > you're heading down the dzil route -- which can solve that for you). > > -- David Yep, we're splitting bioperl up and using dzil to push releases to CPAN, so each dist will require a specific VERSION. chris
Re: Possible bug?
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Fields, Christopher J wrote: > https://github.com/bioperl/bioperl-network > > I can work on a minimal test case. If needed I can also fork the specific > github code and try to weed out the problem. No need to do the test case. I was able to load the bioperl dependency chain and see it directly. :-) I have two reactions: (a) Module::Build is doing it wrong -- in that it will "normalize" an undefined version to "0" and leave it in. The CPAN::Meta::Spec v2 says that the version metadata should only exist if a $VERSION string exists, but Module::Build does not produce v2 metadata and the v1.4 spec doesn't say anything about the subkeys of "provides". (b) PAUSE is being too nitpicky. An undefined $VERSION is effectively treated as a "0" in code, so it doesn't really matter too much if the metadata says "0" or omits the key. Nevertheless, in a battle between M::B and PAUSE, clearly PAUSE should win. (I get to wear both hats: I'm PAUSE admin *and* M::B co/ex-maintainer, so I'm indifferent.) I'll commit a fix to the repo and if/when a new M::B maintainer volunteers (or I'm forced by p5p to do another release), then it will go live. I do encourage adding $VERSION to the bioperl code (it looks like you're heading down the dzil route -- which can solve that for you). -- David
Re: Possible bug?
On Oct 18, 2011, at 8:29 AM, David Golden wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2011 3:39 AM, "Leon Timmermans" wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Fields, Christopher J > > wrote: > > > This appears to be due to the version for the modules being set to '0' in > > > META.yml/json instead of not being defined (yes, we know this is a > > > problem with the bioperl code, but Andreas indicated that lack of a > > > module version probably should not default to '0'. Any reason this is > > > occurring? > > > > Meta 2.0 is quite clear it should be absent if no version is detected. > > Actually that is what Module::Build appears to be trying to do, I'm > > not sure why it fails. > > Could we please get a minimal test case that demonstrates the error? > > Or even just a repo URL for the code in question? https://github.com/bioperl/bioperl-network I can work on a minimal test case. If needed I can also fork the specific github code and try to weed out the problem. > Thanks, > > David chris
Re: Possible bug?
On Oct 18, 2011 3:39 AM, "Leon Timmermans" wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Fields, Christopher J > wrote: > > This appears to be due to the version for the modules being set to '0' in META.yml/json instead of not being defined (yes, we know this is a problem with the bioperl code, but Andreas indicated that lack of a module version probably should not default to '0'. Any reason this is occurring? > > Meta 2.0 is quite clear it should be absent if no version is detected. > Actually that is what Module::Build appears to be trying to do, I'm > not sure why it fails. Could we please get a minimal test case that demonstrates the error? Or even just a repo URL for the code in question? Thanks, David
Re: Possible bug?
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Fields, Christopher J wrote: > This appears to be due to the version for the modules being set to '0' in > META.yml/json instead of not being defined (yes, we know this is a problem > with the bioperl code, but Andreas indicated that lack of a module version > probably should not default to '0'. Any reason this is occurring? Meta 2.0 is quite clear it should be absent if no version is detected. Actually that is what Module::Build appears to be trying to do, I'm not sure why it fails. Leon
