| 1 |
Antoine Raillon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Simple question, what's the best way to correct these ? modifying ebuils |
| 3 |
> to match new version (and checking some stuff) and then submitting them |
| 4 |
> to bugzilla assigned to perl@g.o ? or something totally different ? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
Forcing CPAN authors to be consistent is the answer ;) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Seriously - the lack of accuracy is because of two factors - module |
| 9 |
names not matching download files (like with File::Spec, which now |
| 10 |
downloads as PathTools), and a complete lack of consistency in version |
| 11 |
numbering schemes. Some authors use a simple X.YZ system, some use |
| 12 |
W.X.YZ, and yet others use W.X.vYZ - which isn't always a reflection of |
| 13 |
the module's version, or of the name of the exploded tarball. What we |
| 14 |
have is as close as we can get, but on that list that was sent AxKit is |
| 15 |
a good example of this. The version is really 1.6.2, the author calls it |
| 16 |
1.62, but it explodes as something else (at least if memory serves it |
| 17 |
was a good example...I could be wrong, but then, AxKit is part of that |
| 18 |
family of packages that isn't simple to bump because of interdependencies). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Hope this almost gets close to being a good excuse/explanation :) |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
~mcummings |
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
gentoo-perl@g.o mailing list |
Archives