Re: Module Signatures

> On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 03:52:52 +0200, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > * Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-07 03:25]: >> Andreas J. Koenig wrote: >> >>On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:02:00 +1000, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>said: >> > >> (What would be m

Re: Module Signatures

> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:22:16 +1000, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Andreas J. Koenig wrote: >>> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:02:00 +1000, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> said: >> >> (What would be marginally worth it is having PAUSE sign distros. >> At >> >> least we

Re: Module Signatures

* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-07 03:25]: > Andreas J. Koenig wrote: > >>On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:02:00 +1000, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>said: > > >> (What would be marginally worth it is having PAUSE sign > > >> distros. At least we can assure that the CPAN mirror >

Re: Module Signatures

Andreas J. Koenig wrote: On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:02:00 +1000, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> (What would be marginally worth it is having PAUSE sign distros. At >> least we can assure that the CPAN mirror didn't tamper with the >> files, which I think is the most likely "attack"

Re: Module Signatures

> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 10:02:00 +1000, Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> (What would be marginally worth it is having PAUSE sign distros. At >> least we can assure that the CPAN mirror didn't tamper with the >> files, which I think is the most likely "attack" on CPAN.) > Frankly,

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

I understand the concerns with M::B itself; that’s why I always use `create_makefile_pl => 'traditional'`. Indeed, and if you insist on using Module::Build, that is most certainly the sanest approach. Adam K

Re: Module Signatures

(What would be marginally worth it is having PAUSE sign distros. At least we can assure that the CPAN mirror didn't tamper with the files, which I think is the most likely "attack" on CPAN.) Frankly, that's the best idea I've heard yet. It would at least be "trivial" to implement compared to

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

* Adam Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-07 00:00]: > If you ONLY use the basic functionality, and you aren't willing > to pay attention, you should be using EU:MM still, until either > MB or or MI hits 1.0, because neither of them are ready for > general use. Manual inspection has always sugge

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

But you’re not catching me dead using an installer that requires me to pay attention to its development and to push up new versions of my distros in response to its bugs. There are far better ways to waste my time. Good, because that's entirely the point I've been trying to make ever since I st

Re: CPAN and META.yml: no_index dir vs directory

Hmm, it looks like there is a strong correspondence between distros using 'directory' and distros produced by Module::Install. There goes Adam, breaking rules and rebelling against established conventions. Hehe. Just kidding. I think I like 'directory' better myself anyway. Sigh, one of these

Re: Module Signatures

Sorry, meant to send this to the list. :) What’s the point? Good question. Crypt::OpenPGP doesn't maintain a web-of-trust either. People that have webs of trust have GPG, otherwise, what are they using? If all that’s verified is that the distribution was signed with the key uploaded to

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

On 7/6/06, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Steffen Mueller wrote: > Michael G Schwern schrieb: >> What's broken and why suddenly 5.8.8? > > * ActivePerl::Config on case-insensitive filesystems interacts > erroneously with Module::Install's (outdated) @INC hack, so remove it. > (Patch

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

Jan Dubois schrieb: Module::Install version 0.60 and earlier pushes one of its own directories to the front of @INC, and that directory contains Base.pm or BASE.pm, shadowing the core base.pm on case insensitive filesystems (Windows, OS X). Thank you for the explanation. I wasn't aware of this.

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

Steffen Mueller wrote: Michael G Schwern schrieb: What's broken and why suddenly 5.8.8? * ActivePerl::Config on case-insensitive filesystems interacts erroneously with Module::Install's (outdated) @INC hack, so remove it. (Patch from Gisle Aas) [...] Sounds like its a combination of an M:

RE: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006, Michael G Schwern wrote: > On 7/6/06, Steffen Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Versions of Module::Install < 0.61 do not work on the current > > ActivePerl release 5.8.8 build 817. > > What's broken and why suddenly 5.8.8? Module::Install version 0.60 and earlier pushes

Re: TAP extension proposal: test groups

On 7/3/06, Jonathan Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you wanted to truly please DJB (with his "don't parse" mantra), then you could open two extra filehandles, one for 'ok' and one for 'not ok', and print the number of the test mod 256 (i.e. one byte per test, no newline; just the byte) to e

Re: TAP extension proposal: test groups

On 7/4/06, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Original Message From: Jonathan Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > This leads me to another question -- what to do about output that the > program prints to STDOUT or STDERR? There are some modules that I use > that insist on C-ing whenever someth

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

Michael G Schwern schrieb: On 7/6/06, Steffen Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Versions of Module::Install < 0.61 do not work on the current ActivePerl release 5.8.8 build 817. What's broken and why suddenly 5.8.8? ActiveState introduced some new form of local configuration or something.

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

On 7/6/06, Steffen Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Versions of Module::Install < 0.61 do not work on the current ActivePerl release 5.8.8 build 817. What's broken and why suddenly 5.8.8?

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:18 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: * Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-06 16:30]: IMHO it likely counts as a CPANTS pass for now, but it may be a fail in the future unless you update the Makefile.PL with a newer M::B as bugs are discovered. To make sure we’re on the same

Re: check if all the links on an HTML page are working (except the mailto links)

* A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-06 18:05]: > Err, right. I suppose that should be `m!^(s?)http(?(1)|s?):!`, Drat, `m!^(s)?http(?(1)|s?):!` of course. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: check if all the links on an HTML page are working (except the mailto links)

On Jul 6, 2006, at 11:01 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: Err, right. I suppose that should be `m!^(s?)http(?(1)|s?):!`, or else you just punt on `shttp` (does LWP handle those, anyway?). I was going to just make it be /^https?/. Never heard of shttp. -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petda

Re: check if all the links on an HTML page are working (except the mailto links)

* Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-06 17:55]: > On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:46 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > > >$urls = [ grep m!^s?https?:!, @$urls ]; > > What's an "shttps" link? Err, right. I suppose that should be `m!^(s?)http(?(1)|s?):!`, or else you just punt on `shttp` (does LWP han

Re: check if all the links on an HTML page are working (except the mailto links)

On 7/6/06, Andy Lester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:46 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > $urls = [ grep m!^s?https?:!, @$urls ]; What's an "shttps" link? That the Sean Connery version... Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"

Re: check if all the links on an HTML page are working (except the mailto links)

On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:46 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: $urls = [ grep m!^s?https?:!, @$urls ]; What's an "shttps" link? -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance

Re: check if all the links on an HTML page are working (except the mailto links)

* Gabor Szabo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-06 17:25]: > Using Test::WWW::Mechanize 1.10 I am trying to > $w->page_links_ok(); > > on a page that has an e-mail address in it and the test fails. > > How could I tell TWM not to bother with the mailto links on the page? There’s no official way. Unt

Re: check if all the links on an HTML page are working (except the mailto links)

On Jul 6, 2006, at 10:22 AM, Gabor Szabo wrote: Using Test::WWW::Mechanize 1.10 I am trying to $w->page_links_ok(); on a page that has an e-mail address in it and the test fails. How could I tell TWM not to bother with the mailto links on the page? That's silly that it tries the mailto. I

Re: Proposal Suggestion - Test::Run

Shlomi Fish n wrote: I don't see using the X11 licence for my software as anti-social. Like I said, But it is. You are forcing people to spend some of their precious time to understand the ramifications of this different license, and consider the differences between it and the GPL and AL.

check if all the links on an HTML page are working (except the mailto links)

Using Test::WWW::Mechanize 1.10 I am trying to $w->page_links_ok(); on a page that has an e-mail address in it and the test fails. How could I tell TWM not to bother with the mailto links on the page? Gabor

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

* Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-06 16:30]: > IMHO it likely counts as a CPANTS pass for now, but it may be a > fail in the future unless you update the Makefile.PL with a > newer M::B as bugs are discovered. To make sure we’re on the same page: that would be bugs in M::B::Compat, not M:

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

On Jul 6, 2006, at 9:18 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote: * Steffen Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-06 15:20]: What does Module::Build count as? ;) I use M::B with `create_makefile_pl => 'traditional'`. What does that count as? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // IMHO

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

On Jul 6, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Steffen Mueller wrote: David Golden schrieb: What about adding NO_BROKEN_INSTALLER as a Kwalitee point for CPANTS? Maybe tongue-in-cheek, but it's actually a good idea. Module::Install pre-0.61 is certainly "broken". What does Module::Build count as? ;) Steffe

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

* Steffen Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-06 15:20]: > What does Module::Build count as? ;) I use M::B with `create_makefile_pl => 'traditional'`. What does that count as? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: Module Signatures [was Re: On "Gaming" CPANTS...]

* Jonathan Rockway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-06 03:25]: > I think the solution (to dependency hell) is to dictate that > CPAN modules be signed with a standard algorithm. OpenPGP > allows too many different algorithms, hence the 22 modules > Crypt::OpenPGP is dependent on. The only strong reaso

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

David Golden schrieb: What about adding NO_BROKEN_INSTALLER as a Kwalitee point for CPANTS? Maybe tongue-in-cheek, but it's actually a good idea. Module::Install pre-0.61 is certainly "broken". What does Module::Build count as? ;) Steffen

Re: Test::Builder feature request...

Michael G Schwern wrote: > On 2/9/06, Geoffrey Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > This works: >> >> yes, excellent randy. thanks for that. it still seems a little >> hackish but >> that's ok - hackish works for me if it means I can do what I want and >> nobody >> else needs to do extra work

Re: Old and broken versions of Module::Install

Steffen Mueller wrote: Versions of Module::Install < 0.61 do not work on the current ActivePerl release 5.8.8 build 817. There are *a lot* of CPAN distributions that use Module::Install versions in the 0.3X range. In fact the most modules that use Module::Install are still 0.3X. For example an

Old and broken versions of Module::Install

Hi perl.qa, hopefully, this message will not provoke another flame war about Module::Install and Module::Build. Please don't feel tempted. I don't care which build system you use if it works. Versions of Module::Install < 0.61 do not work on the current ActivePerl release 5.8.8 build 817. Th

Re: CPAN and META.yml: no_index dir vs directory

Andreas J. Koenig wrote: On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 21:39:06 -0500, Ken Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Jul 5, 2006, at 7:47 PM, David Golden wrote: >> Some potential options: >> >> (a) Add "directory" as a synonym to the spec and add "dir" as >> something that CPAN sites recognize. >

Re: On "Gaming" CPANTS, and a Kwalitee Suggestion

Tels wrote: And, "improve compatibility" - with broken systems? OMG. :) Yeah, you know, like when you comment this out before release :-) # die("Sorry, you must have a computer to run this software\n") # if($^O =~ /win32/i); Given that Mod::Sig checks are just that the signature is valid,

Re: CPAN and META.yml: no_index dir vs directory

B/BL/BLM/Win32API-Registry-0.27 I can move this one pretty easily too, it needs a new release anyway. R/RC/RCAPUTO/POE-0.3502 R/RC/RCAPUTO/POE-Component-Client-Keepalive-0.0801 I'm pretty sure Rocco will move next release as well. Adam K

Re: The new wiki

I own p6docs.com if you'd like to use that, just give me some nameservers to point to. On 7/5/06, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks to Tyler MacDonald and yi.org we now have a brand spanking new wiki! http://perl-qa.yi.org/ is its location, we'll worry about getting more offi

Re: TAP Grammar

On 7/5/06, Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jul 3, 2006, at 6:33 PM, chromatic wrote: > On Monday 03 July 2006 09:01, Jonathan T. Rockway wrote: > >> That said, I would be interested. I'm still trying to page all the >> perl6/parrot grammars (PGE, TGE, etc.) into my brain, so any >> ad