On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:53:45PM -0400, David Golden wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> > I've been meaning to propose for a while that for CPAN Perl 5 we drop
> > support for everything other than tar.gz (we can talk about the need
> > for zip files later) and en
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> I've been meaning to propose for a while that for CPAN Perl 5 we drop
> support for everything other than tar.gz (we can talk about the need
> for zip files later) and encourage a switch to something like
>
> D/DA/DAGOLDEN/Foo-Bar-1.23.cpan
+
* Adam Kennedy [2010-04-14T20:53:15]
> Alternative option, when we switch to Perl 6 also take the opportunity
> to switch to a specific named extension.
>
> D/DA/DAGOLDEN/Foo-Bar-1.23.c6z
I haven't wanted to get into this thread, but I will say that I had the same
idea as Adam, and didn't think
That should be "Perl 6 Applications"
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Adam Kennedy wrote:
> Alternative option, when we switch to Perl 6 also take the opportunity
> to switch to a specific named extension.
>
> D/DA/DAGOLDEN/Foo-Bar-1.23.c6z
>
> The directory option doesn't cover the case where y
Alternative option, when we switch to Perl 6 also take the opportunity
to switch to a specific named extension.
D/DA/DAGOLDEN/Foo-Bar-1.23.c6z
The directory option doesn't cover the case where you are installing
from arbitrary URLs as supported by cpanplus, pip and cpanminus. The
perl6 directory
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:57:04AM -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:
>
> > Agreed, but you know you're going to see this and variants thereof:
> >
> > requires:
> > perl: 6,0
> >
> > Should that be a rejection for unknown format? I would think so. Better to
> > fail early than have jun
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:17:55AM -0500, Graham Barr wrote:
> > [1] Consequently, changing this would entirely break the ability to upload
> > Perl 4 code to the CPAN.
>
> nope. it just would not be indexed. but then perl4 code may not get indexed
> today either
It has to have .pm files to be
On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:18 AM, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:14:45AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
>> --- On Wed, 14/4/10, Jesse Vincent wrote:
>>
>>> From: Jesse Vincent
>>>
Agreed, but you know you're going to see this and
>>> variants thereof:
requires:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:14:45AM -0700, Ovid wrote:
> --- On Wed, 14/4/10, Jesse Vincent wrote:
>
> > From: Jesse Vincent
> >
> > > Agreed, but you know you're going to see this and
> > variants thereof:
> > >
> > > requires:
> > > perl: 6,0
> > >
> > > Should that be a rej
On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:55 AM, Graham Barr wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
>>
>>> If we separate Perl 5 and Perl 6 distributions within the file system,
>>> we can distinguish between them easily and without relying on indexes,
>>> meta data files or other elements of comple
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> That would be a pretty policy significant change. Historically, so long as
> your
> tarball is well-formed, you can upload line-noise[1] to PAUSE and it will
> propagate it.
Tautology. It's the "[Perl programming] Authors Upload Server" an
--- On Wed, 14/4/10, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> From: Jesse Vincent
>
> > Agreed, but you know you're going to see this and
> variants thereof:
> >
> > requires:
> > perl: 6,0
> >
> > Should that be a rejection for unknown format? I would
> think so. Better to fail early than have
On Apr 14, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
>
>> If we separate Perl 5 and Perl 6 distributions within the file system,
>> we can distinguish between them easily and without relying on indexes,
>> meta data files or other elements of complexity.
>
> True, but is that *really* a significant need
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
> Upload is essentially 'drop a distro tarball' + 'claim ownership'
> (+ and optional 'put in this directory') which then queues it for
> automated indexing later.
I believe it's important to distinguish those activities. "drop a
tarball into a d
--- On Wed, 14/4/10, Tim Bunce wrote:
> No need for a radio-box if PAUSE auto-detects from the META
> file.
>
> Tim.
Agreed, but you know you're going to see this and variants thereof:
requires:
perl: 6,0
Should that be a rejection for unknown format? I would think so. Better t
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 01:48:28PM -0400, David Golden wrote:
>
> He and I agree that there are significant benefits to the community to
> using a single repository for both Perl 5 and Perl 6 distributions.
+1
> We worked through some differences of opinion in various ways this
> could be accomp
16 matches
Mail list logo
