John Peacock wrote:
> Eric Wilhelm wrote:
> > The question may be whether the version.pm / CPAN code is honoring
> > your VERSION line correctly.  Though, possibly that should be
> > qv('v2.4.0'). John?
>
> I'd have to know what release of CPAN you are using, since those two
> version objects are equivalent.
>
> > If it compares a version object to your META.yml, I think that should
> > be good.  If it is doing a string-compare, I think all bets are off.
>
> Andreas has been very good about making sure that CPAN and PAUSE work
> with version objects, so I suspect it is actually a back-versioned CPAN
> rather than Module::Build.

Nope, my complainant tells me he is running CPAN.pm 1.9101, which appears 
to be the latest version.

Did I get it right that CPAN.pm doesn't yet use version.pm for version 
number comparisons?  If that's the case then I wonder why `r` ("reinstall 
recommendations") in `cpan` on my system (CPAN.pm 1.76_02, Perl 5.8.8) 
does NOT list Mail::SPF as being out of date, even though I have the exact 
same version of Mail::SPF installed as the complainant (2.004), and my 
CPAN.pm is even older than his.  Has CPAN.pm's version comparison behavior 
changed since 1.76_02?

Julian.

Attachment: pgpNrwD4jOxRj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to