> On Oct 26, 2017, at 11:04 PM, Salve J Nilsen <s...@pvv.org> wrote: > > David Golden said: >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Chad Granum <exodi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I have a small objection to putting an alt module in a namespace other >>> than alt: It is less obvious. If I see Alt::Thing I will simply know it >>> will replace Thing. >> >> Consider, too, if someone else wants to another alternative Thing. >> Alt::Thing2 -- is that a second Alt::Thing? Or an alternative of Thing2? >> >> Possibly namespacing like Thing::Alt::Boring would then allow >> Thing::Alt::Spiffy, etc. But I don't want to have explicit rules about >> this. I think intent is more important. > > Would adding a field to the META spec about API conformance solve some this? > > api_conforms_to: > module: CPAN::Thing > version: 2.61 >
As a packager, that would certainly make it easier. We've run into 2 cpan modules using the same file in the past and had to sort it out. This sort of information would be a very helpful thing we could check. Todd
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
