In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED], David
Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/2/06, Chris Dolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not an EU::MM bug -- it's a new M::B feature.
What should you do? You're not going to like this answer:
Don't use recursive test directories. :-)
Does
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Shlomi Fish
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See http://xrl.us/sw5o for a recipe for integrating make runtest and make
distruntest targets into a Makefile.PL-generated Makefile that makes use of
Test::Manifest.
That Test::Manifest stuff in XML::RSS is old. Instead,
Michael G Schwern writes:
A few people have asked how I do my CPAN scans. I keep a minicpan
handy and have a little script called grep_cpan ...
http://schwern.org/src/grep_cpan
404. But this works:
http://www.schwern.org/~schwern/src/grep_cpan
Smylers
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm
checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because
they seem to use 1.0
Should I switch to 1.0-checking?
No. The CPANTS game is a tool for change. We
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to
CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo):
Aha, since I have your attention...
I've been meaning to suggest the following changes, on the best and
worst reports pages:
This distributions got the most
Chris Dolan wrote:
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm
checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because
they seem to use 1.0
Should I switch to 1.0-checking?
No. The CPANTS game is
Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to
CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo):
metayml_is_parsable
metayml_has_license
metayml_conforms_spec
metayml_has_license now indictes whether there's a computer
Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Chris Dolan wrote:
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm
checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because
they seem to use 1.0
Should I switch to 1.0-checking?
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to
CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo):
metayml_is_parsable
metayml_has_license
metayml_conforms_spec
metayml_has_license now indictes whether there's a computer readable
license in META.yml,
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:35:41PM +0100, David Landgren wrote:
Aha, since I have your attention...
:-)
I've been meaning to suggest the following changes, on the best and
worst reports pages:
This distributions got the most Kwalitee:
-- These distributions have the most
Chris Dolan wrote:
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm
checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because
they seem to use 1.0
Should I switch to 1.0-checking?
No. The CPANTS game is
Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.0 should pass the 1.0 spec
Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.1 should pass the 1.2 spec
err...
Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.2 should pass the 1.2 spec
I know what I meant. :-)
I thought that was the version of YAML they're
Michael G Schwern wrote:
Christopher H. Laco wrote:
Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.0 should pass the 1.0 spec
Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.1 should pass the 1.2 spec
err...
Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.2 should pass the 1.2 spec
I know what I meant. :-)
I thought that was
On 11/3/06, Christopher H. Laco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
meta-spec:
url: http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec-v1.2.html
version: 1.2
The one caution I'd give is around no_index. The spec always called
for dir for directories, but CPAN/PAUSE were checking for
directory
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 10:47:36AM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
meta-spec:
url: http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec-v1.2.html
version: 1.2
The 'problem' is that this field was introduced in 1.1, and it seems
that quite a lot of dists use 1.0 of META-spec.
My
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hmm, I tried to do that (I usually use Module::Build):
~$ module-starter --module=FooTest --author='foo' --email='[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Created starter directories and files
~$ cd FooTest/
~/FooTest$ perl Makefile.PL
Checking if your kit is complete...
Warning: the
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 01:00:58PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote:
Oh so THAT'S where all those reports of -e META.yml not found were
coming from. Module::Starter is being naughty and putting META.yml
into the MANIFEST before it exists.
Well, after fixing this by removing META.yml from
Thomas Klausner wrote:
Hi!
I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to
CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo):
metayml_is_parsable
metayml_has_license
metayml_conforms_spec
metayml_has_license now indictes whether there's a computer readable
license in META.yml,
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:47:03 +0100, Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Hi!
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:35:41PM +0100, David Landgren wrote:
Question: how are the dists sorted on the /author/CPANID page?
Currently random (whatever the DB spits out), but I'll change that to
* Andreas J. Koenig [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-04 04:55]:
Sorting by qualitee shows which modules the author loves at the
top and the neglected ones at the bottom. So there is only one
right sort order: by kwalitee, descending.
Actually, by kwalitee, descending, then name, ascending.
Regards,
* Thomas Klausner [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-03 15:25]:
metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS
game. I'm checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2.
Most don't, because they seem to use 1.0
Should I switch to 1.0-checking?
Is there something broken about 1.0 that is
21 matches
Mail list logo
