Michael G Schwern wrote:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Philippe Bruhat (BooK) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-10 19:50]:
The French often type LICENCE for LICENSE, so it might be
good to update the checking code to look for that too. I've got
one of my distributions with that typo.
Not because I really
* David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-13 10:50]:
Real men have their own OED at home. And still can't remember
when to use licence and license. Or practice and practise.
Stupid language.
I made up my own mnemonic aid:
You devise a device.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis //
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Philippe Bruhat (BooK) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-10 19:50]:
The French often type LICENCE for LICENSE, so it might be
good to update the checking code to look for that too. I've got
one of my distributions with that typo.
Uhm, that’s proper English spelling. “License”
Le vendredi 03 novembre 2006 à 06:01, Thomas Klausner écrivait:
has_humanreadable_license does some where basic guessing if there's a
human-readable license (LICENSE file or pod-section).
The French often type LICENCE for LICENSE, so it might be good
to update the checking code to look for
Hi!
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 06:58:11AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
But yeah, other than that, I agree, the metric should check that
META.yml conforms to the spec it says it conforms to, and that
a metric that checks for conformance to the latest version should
be a bonus, if it exists at all.
David Golden wrote:
I have to second this. There really shouldn't be separate conforms
to 1.0 and conforms to 1.2 metrics and so on. What happens as the
spec evolves? Unless the spec is broken, encouraging specific latest
spec compliant is just churn and Kwalitee breaks if there's ever a
On 11/6/06, Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And realistically, Ken, Adam and I (maintainers of the major install tools)
really control most of the META.yml generation anyway. If we don't upgrade,
you don't upgrade.
Well, that's not entirely true for things like no_index or
* David Golden [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-06 05:40]:
I have to second this. There really shouldn't be separate
conforms to 1.0 and conforms to 1.2 metrics and so on.
What happens as the spec evolves? Unless the spec is broken,
encouraging specific latest spec compliant is just churn and
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* 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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
