Steffen Winkler wrote:
I can not get a ppm package for a developer release because ActiveState or
someone else does not build that automaticly.
Than I use the typical 2nd way - cpan.
This was the reason to run cpan using the *.tar.gz.
Maybe than I do the same actions like StrawberryPerl.
I
hi,
some of you might be aware that I have submitted a grant request to the TPF that
was focusing on two things:
1) fund-raising for TPF
2) promoting Perl on various non-Perl events
The main selling point to the companies was providing help to them to find
Perl developers.[1]
I'd like to extend
FYI
- Forwarded message from David Golden xda...@gmail.com -
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 06:52:57 -0400
From: David Golden xda...@gmail.com
To: Nigel Horne n...@bandsman.co.uk
Cc: CPAN Testers Discuss cpan-testers-disc...@perl.org
Subject: Re: CPAN::Reporter: test results were not valid,
On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
FYI
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Nigel Horne n...@bandsman.co.uk wrote:
! DBD::Pg2.6 2.17.1
Let's review version number math:
2.6 = 2.60
2.17.1 = 2.017001
2.60 2.017001
Looks like it should have been
On 07/08/10 14:21, Gabor Szabo wrote:
hi,
Hi Gabor,
some of you might be aware that I have submitted a grant request to the TPF that
was focusing on two things:
1) fund-raising for TPF
2) promoting Perl on various non-Perl events
The main selling point to the companies was providing help to
On 07/08/10 16:32, David E. Wheeler wrote:
On Jul 8, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
FYI
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Nigel Hornen...@bandsman.co.uk wrote:
! DBD::Pg2.6 2.17.1
Let's review version number math:
2.6 = 2.60
2.17.1 = 2.017001
2.60
On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Jens Rehsack wrote:
Looks like it should have been 2.6.0:
2.6.0 = 2.006001
2.17.1 = 2.017001
2.006001 2.017001
Version number suck. And clearly, three-version numbers suck harder.
I think, the best way out would be a hard consensus and CPAN reindex.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Looks like it should have been 2.6.0:
Yep, there is no such thing as version 2.6 of DBD::Pg.
I think, the best way out would be a hard consensus and
CPAN reindex.
Consensus on what exactly?
Perhaps it would be good if the mixing of two
On Jul 8, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Perhaps it would be good if the mixing of two and three
dot versions on the same check was treated as a severe
error and caused an automatic FAIL report.
I can't see a case where using both forms would ever be desired.
In my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
I can't see a case where using both forms would ever be desired.
In my META.yml, I'll use three-digit notation for modules that use it
(DBD::Pg) and decimal for those that don't (DBI).
Right, I didn't mean to imply you can't mix and match
On Jul 8, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
But then that would screw things up for modules that unfortunately
changed their versioning algorithm. I would no longer be able to
require DBD::Pg 1.49, for example, even thought that's perfectly valid.
Good point, but hopefully
The installation is ok now:
- ActivePerl-5.12.1.1201-MSWin32-x86-292674.msi installed
- run cpan install TIMB/DBI-1.611_93.tar.gz
CPAN output:
It looks like you don't have a C compiler and make utility installed. Trying
to install dmake and the MinGW gcc compiler using the Perl Package Manager.
Hi Luben
I have incorporated your patch into the DRCP branch and I have also merged
that branch back into trunk for any testing that you will be doing I would
try it with the Trunk which you can find here
http://svn.perl.org/modules/dbd-oracle/trunk
I went with the ORA_DRCP_* for the attribute
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 04:33:28PM +, Jens Rehsack wrote:
On 07/08/10 14:21, Gabor Szabo wrote:
How do you think vendors could help?
(Giving money?, Giving software licenses? Allocating developer time?)
If a company would hire/contract DBI/DBD developers to get a specific
job
My take on this, for the record, is to prefer two part numbers
in the form X.YYY where YYY never has a trailing zero.
Short, sweet, simple.
Tim.
p.s. No one commented on the DBI going from 1.609 to 1.611 :)
On Jul 8, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Tim Bunce wrote:
My take on this, for the record, is to prefer two part numbers
in the form X.YYY where YYY never has a trailing zero.
And thus may be X.Y or X.YY as well.
Short, sweet, simple.
Yeah, I'm with you. All of my modules use this format. (Except
Tim Bunce wrote:
My take on this, for the record, is to prefer two part numbers
in the form X.YYY where YYY never has a trailing zero.
Short, sweet, simple.
Tim.
p.s. No one commented on the DBI going from 1.609 to 1.611 :)
You mean now? 1.611 came out on April 29th. Or did you mean the
Underscores should be banned from version numbers. Full stop.
Best,
David
On Jul 8, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
Tim Bunce wrote:
My take on this, for the record, is to prefer two part numbers
in the form X.YYY where YYY never has a trailing zero.
Short, sweet, simple.
Tim.
18 matches
Mail list logo
