On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Tim Bunce <tim.bu...@pobox.com> wrote: >>On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:59:32PM -0400, Jesse Vincent wrote:>> Forcing an >>extension makes all sorts of tools that previously "just >> worked" with a tarball suddenly start to fail.
We've dealt with it in the past. However, I'm inclined to think that going that way means an entirely new client that is designed for .cpan files. This is more akin to PPM, except non binary. The question in my mind is what this gains us beyond "double-clickability" for Windows. (Which is a non-trivial benefit -- e.g. see a *.cpan distribution on a web page, click it to install in Strawberry Perl). It might let us rethink some of the painful conventions of distribution tarballs today. > It's also the wrong place to encode version information. Putting version info in the tarball name was necessary to avoid duplicate uploads, I suspect. It *is* a terrible place to be encoding version information, I agree. David
