Hi David,
Having a uniform version number for all packages in a distribution is
a good strategy. Especially in relation to back-tracking to original
distribution.
If a package is later lifted out it can continue it's (new)life with a
new uniform version number. As long as the version numbers are
sequential things should not go wrong.
jonasbn
On 13/09/2009, at 14.19, David Golden wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:50 AM, Jonas Brømsø Nielsen <jona...@gmail.com
> wrote:
I learned one lesson based on feedback from a user and that was
that the
distribution number should be reflected in the main package
identified by
the build file an example from Workflow:
dist_name => 'Workflow',
dist_version_from => 'lib/Workflow.pm',
That's a great point. I wrote a short article defining what I call a
"well-formed distribution" -- where the distribution name is the same
as a module name (with appropriate :: mangling) and the distribution
version is the same as the $VERSION of the package of the same name.
http://www.dagolden.com/index.php/308/packages-modules-and-distributions/
Personally, I'm of the school of setting all $VERSION the same so that
they clearly indicate which *distribution* they came from.
While I don't use it personally (I have my own tools/workflow), the
"perl-reversion" script in Perl-Version makes this easy.
Unfortunately, it's in the "examples" folder, so it isn't installed by
default.
http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/ANDYA/Perl-Version-1.009/examples/perl-reversion
-- David
