Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
> I've tracked it down.
Awesome! Thanks for your efforts!
> See, this holds for v-strings:
>
> v2.5 == v2.0005
How is that relevant? You mean that CPAN.pm converts "2.005" into
"v2.005"? If it does, then that's fine (even if just by accident).
> And this is t
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:06:58 +, Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> Now that Mail-SPF v2.005 has been released (with META.yml fixed to read
> "version: v2.005" instead of "version: 2.005000"), I am still having
> trouble with CPAN.pm:
> | cpan[1]> r Mail::SPF
> |
This follow up of mine might be slightly off-topic for the module-build
list, but as it still pertains to this thread, I'd rather avoid fragmen-
ting it.
Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
> Julian Mehnle said:
> > recently someone reported a problem with one of my modules that might
> > indicate an issue w
Hi all,
Julian Mehnle wrote:
> recently someone reported a problem with one of my modules that might
> indicate an issue with how CPAN, Module::Build's META.yml generator, and
> version.pm interact. Please see the rt.cpan.org ticket included below.
>
> The Mail-SPF 2.004 distribution package was
Julian Mehnle wrote:
> I will try that. If I consistently use two dots, do I still need the 'v'?
No, if you are using two dots, the current CPAN version.pm code will output the
same thing that you input:
$ perl -Mversion -e '$v = qv("2.004.0"); print $v'
2.004.0
as opposed to:
$ perl -Mversi
> On Fri, 4 May 2007 10:24:56 +, Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
>> > If that's the case then I wonder why `r` ("reinstall
>> > recommendations") in `cpan` on my system (CPAN.pm 1.76_02, Perl
>> > 5.8.8) does NOT list Mail::SPF as being out of date,
John Peacock wrote:
> Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > But doesn't `perldoc version` say that I am "strongly encouraged to
> > use the qv() operator" if I wanted to use extended versions? Does
> > that recommen- dation perhaps need to be further qualified then?
>
> You skipped over the previous paragraph:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
But doesn't `perldoc version` say that I am "strongly encouraged to use the
qv() operator" if I wanted to use extended versions? Does that recommen-
dation perhaps need to be further qualified then?
You skipped over the previous paragraph:
Whichever of the two types of
Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
> > If that's the case then I wonder why `r` ("reinstall
> > recommendations") in `cpan` on my system (CPAN.pm 1.76_02, Perl
> > 5.8.8) does NOT list Mail::SPF as being out of date, even though I
> > have the exact same version of Mail::SPF installed as the
> > complainant
> On Thu, 3 May 2007 18:03:06 +, Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Did I get it right that CPAN.pm doesn't yet use version.pm for version
> number comparisons?
Yes. It has its own CPAN::Version module.
> If that's the case then I wonder why `r` ("reinstall
> recommendat
John Peacock wrote:
> version-0.7203 now returns the same string that was used to initialize a
> version object as the default stringification. The internal representa-
> tion is no longer overtly visible (though you can get it via ->numify or
> ->normal).
Well, that's only with version-0.7203+,
John Peacock wrote:
> Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> > The question may be whether the version.pm / CPAN code is honoring
> > your VERSION line correctly. Though, possibly that should be
> > qv('v2.4.0'). John?
>
> I'd have to know what release of CPAN you are using, since those two
> version objects are e
Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
When CPAN.pm calculates the number, it never has trailing zeroes, when
version.pm calculates the number, it often appends trailing zeroes.
No longer the case; version-0.7203 now returns the same string that was
used to initialize a version object as the default stringi
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 21:32:13 -0400, John Peacock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'd have to know what release of CPAN you are using, since those two version
> objects are equivalent.
I know that you believe that they are equivalent but this is not the
question. CPAN.pm honours the string r
> On Wed, 2 May 2007 22:34:23 +, Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi all,
> recently someone reported a problem with one of my modules that might
> indicate an issue with how CPAN, Module::Build's META.yml generator, and
> version.pm interact. Please see the rt.cpan.org t
Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> The question may be whether the version.pm / CPAN code is honoring your
> VERSION line correctly. Though, possibly that should be qv('v2.4.0').
> John?
I'd have to know what release of CPAN you are using, since those two version
objects are equivalent.
> If it compares a
# from Julian Mehnle
# on Wednesday 02 May 2007 03:34 pm:
>Is it likely that M::B 0.26's META.yml generator is badly interacting
>with version.pm-based version numbers (`use version; our $VERSION =
>qv('2.004');`) and CPAN is really expecting a version.pm-style version
>number in META.yml (here: "
Hi all,
recently someone reported a problem with one of my modules that might
indicate an issue with how CPAN, Module::Build's META.yml generator, and
version.pm interact. Please see the rt.cpan.org ticket included below.
The Mail-SPF 2.004 distribution package was built with Module::Build 0.26,
18 matches
Mail list logo
