On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> # from Paul LeoNerd Evans
> # on Wednesday 22 October 2008:
>
>>On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:52:27AM -0700, Eric Wilhelm wrote:
>>> While that might be annoying (once -- for the author), the tool
>>> can't get around that if it is a required field -- because any other
>>> behavior wouldn't comply with the META.yml spec.
>>
>>I suppose that's a fair point.
>>
>>I'm just thinking of the case where someone will just put "anything"
>> in the field to "shut up" the tool because they just want to get on
>> with it.
>
> Well, I think Module::Build will give you a nice error about that
> telling you what options are valid. If it doesn't, that would be a
> neat patch.
>
> As Gabor pointed out (I think only on IRC), the META.yml spec and the
> Module::Build docs are a bit too intertwined on this point. Also a
> good thing to patch.
As discussed also in IRC it might be probably better if the META.yml spec
was moved to a separate repository so it will be disassociated from
Module::Build as META.yml is more, err meta than MB.
It was also suggested that we discuss this on the cpan-metadata list.
We could move the discussion there but I think the module-authors
list is a better place as the module-authors should be involved in the
evolving specification.
If I am not mistaken Ken is the owner of the MB repository
So Ken, would you be ready to move the META.yml spec to another repository?
Would you first prefer to move whatever has to be moved from the docs
of MB to META.yml and move it then?
I know of the list of licenses that should be moved but there might be others.
I'd be glad to put some (little) time in helping out in this.
regards
Gabor
