Dear Herbert,
The module-authors list has nothing to do with search.cpan.org and
can't do anything to resolve this bug. As per the Feedback page,
you need to email cpansea...@perl.org.
c.f. http://search.cpan.org/feedback
Regards,
David
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:08 PM, herbert breunung
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 05:08:49 +0200, herbert breunung
deirdre_s...@web.de said:
hello
,
im not very amused,
because I stated in
http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/LICHTKIND/Kephra-0.4.3.29/META.yml that
Kephra
is under the gpl and CPAN says postres license:
Am 12.06.2011 10:06, schrieb Andreas J. Koenig:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 05:08:49 +0200, herbert breunung
deirdre_s...@web.de said:
hello
,
im not very amused,
because I stated in
http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/LICHTKIND/Kephra-0.4.3.29/META.yml that
Kephra
is under the
hello
,
im not very amused,
because I stated in
http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/LICHTKIND/Kephra-0.4.3.29/META.yml that Kephra
is under the gpl and CPAN says postres license:
http://search.cpan.org/~lichtkind/Kephra-0.4.3.29/
i will change it to gpl_2 with the next version, maybe that will fix
The executive note:
There is a license field in META.yml shipped with your distribution.
On 24 March 2008 there were 9,920 distributions *without* such field.
Today there are 10,235 such distributions.
It is about 20 seconds to add this field to each one of your modules.
as I described on my
David Landgren wrote:
Gabor Szabo wrote:
As I am usually using Module::Build I did not know that a recent
version of MakeMaker
has started to support the LICENSE parameter and will include it in
the automatically
created META.yml.
That has been the case for a couple of years or so. I think it
* Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-31T23:09:09]
Maybe there should be a module on CPAN (and maybe even distributed in core
perl?) that list some of the major licenses *with their full text*. Then both
Module::Build and MakeMaker could use a list exported from that module as the
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Ricardo SIGNES
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-03-31T23:09:09]
Maybe there should be a module on CPAN (and maybe even distributed in core
perl?) that list some of the major licenses *with their full text*. Then
both
Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
now if someone could explain me why did search.cpan put the
Software::License::Mozilla
under documentation and not with the rest of the files...
The same happened to me once. It seems caused by the mismatch of
the the pod NAME (in this case
that the META.yml license field is insufficiently
documented, and that what little documentation there is shows that the
spec is buggy. This page:
http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec-current.html#license
says that it is required, and that the list of valid options is in the
Module::Build
.
How can they possibly determine whether a licence is correct or not?
It can conflict between the POD and the META.yml, perhaps.
I would also note that the META.yml license field is insufficiently
documented, and that what little documentation there is shows that the
spec is buggy
-licenced code, and some Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike
2.0 UK: England Wales-licenced documentation.
In that case, I recommend not using the license field in META.yml.
The purpose of the license field is to expose in metadata, for the 80%
(or whatever) of CPAN distributions that have
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:28 AM, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would also note that the META.yml license field is insufficiently
documented, and that what little documentation there is shows that the
spec is buggy. This page:
http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Gabor Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe there should be a module on CPAN (and maybe even distributed in
core perl?)
that list some of the major licenses *with their full text*. Then both
I don't know if the full text is necessary. I have a boilerplate
David Precious wrote:
David Landgren wrote:
Gabor Szabo wrote:
As I am usually using Module::Build I did not know that a recent
version of MakeMaker
has started to support the LICENSE parameter and will include it in
the automatically
created META.yml.
That has been the case for a couple of
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:53:25 +, David Precious [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Perhaps checking for the version of EU::MM available and only passing
the LICENSE param if it's 6.30 would be appropriate; after all, the
LICENSE param only matters when doing a make dist anyway.
Let code
As I am usually using Module::Build I did not know that a recent
version of MakeMaker
has started to support the LICENSE parameter and will include it in
the automatically
created META.yml. That in turn will increase your kwalitee metric
In addition it is also very useful as it show up on the
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:30 PM, David Landgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gabor Szabo wrote:
As I am usually using Module::Build I did not know that a recent
version of MakeMaker
has started to support the LICENSE parameter and will include it in
the automatically
created META.yml.
Gabor Szabo wrote:
As I am usually using Module::Build I did not know that a recent
version of MakeMaker
has started to support the LICENSE parameter and will include it in
the automatically
created META.yml.
That has been the case for a couple of years or so. I think it was first
introduced
David Landgren wrote:
Gabor Szabo wrote:
As I am usually using Module::Build I did not know that a recent
version of MakeMaker
has started to support the LICENSE parameter and will include it in
the automatically
created META.yml.
That has been the case for a couple of years or so. I think it
20 matches
Mail list logo
