--- Randy Kobes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2004, Barbie wrote:
>
> > On 14 May 2004 16:59 Randy Kobes wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 14 May 2004, Barbie wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 14 May 2004 15:12 Randy Kobes wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> It might be an idea to adjust the automated testing software
> > >>> so as to ignore testing distributions with names like
> > >>> PPM-some-other-cpan-distribution.tar.gz. These are ppm
> > >>> (binary) packages of distributions (as created, eg, by
> > >>> Module-Build), and thus can't have tests within them.
> > >>
> > >> Having 'PPM' at the front of the name doesn't mean it's a
> > >> PPM package. PPM [1] and PPM-Repositories [2] aren't, as well your
> > >> PPM-Make [3] :)
> > >>
> > >> [1] http://search.cpan.org/dist/PPM/
> > >> [2] http://search.cpan.org/dist/PPM-Repositories/
> > >> [3] http://search.cpan.org/dist/PPM-Make/
> > >
> > > That's true - my comments applied to an archive that had a name like
> > > PPM-some-other-cpan-distribution.tar.gz
> >
> > If they just contained a blib/ directory then this should
> > be possible, but the tester would still have to
> > downloaded/unpacked/check the distribution before that can
> > be ascertained.
> >
> > Perhaps if Module-Build had used something like
> > '.ppm.tar.gz' (or '.ppm.tgz') as an extension it would
> > have been easier to spot. Making it look like a regular
> > tarball is misleading for users as well as automated
> > software.
>
> That's a good point ... PPM itself doesn't care what the
> archive name is, as long as it can unpack it. But there may
> (?) be problems on Windows with an extension other than
> .tar.gz when using tools to unpack such archives.
>
> > > as Module-Build becomes more
> > > popular, this problem will surface with others, and
> > > labelling them as failures is misleading.
> >
> > Perhaps it would have been wiser to think about the
> > conflicts such a naming convention would cause. While this
> > may have been discussed on a Module::Build mailing list, I
> > haven't seen any thoughts on this previously on other
> > lists (particularly the module authors list), so I don't
> > know if there were good reasons for choosing such a name
> > convention. But anything that starts confusing
> > any(one|thing) downloading the module is not good.
> >
> > I can see it might have been the idea to use the PPM
> > namespace to indicate only PPM builds, but does this mean
> > all the regular PPM module distributions are going to
> > change their name, so they move out of the PPM namespace?
>
> I'm not sure the archive name would cause a conflict, other
> than with the automated testing software. The PAUSE indices
> don't pick up such distributions (since blib/ directories
> aren't indexed), so, eg, PPM-NetStumbler-Wap isn't seen
for whatever its worth,
PPM-NetStumbler-Wap does not have a blib directory
and is therefore not a ppm package
...
> putting them up on CPAN is a convenient way to distribute
> such packages, as ActiveState's repository doesn't carry ppm
> versions of all CPAN distributions, for one reason or
> another.
There is no reason that PPM-NetStumbler-Wap should be on CPAN or in any PPM repository
(esp since it's not exactly a ppm package).
It's pure perl so there is no point to make a ppm out of it, much less to put one
up on CPAN.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.
http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
