>>>>> On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:24:34 -0700, Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> That is different than a tarball though. Does the script installation > have to be given up in order to eliminate the ambiguous behavior in the > case of a dist tarball? Good point. I can probably limit it to cases of single file distros. I'll look into this. > On another note about scripts: sleepserver still never made it into the > index despite my reading of mldistwatch and working to try to get the > META.yml 'provides' field right. Is there something that says I have > to have a .pm file to get indexed? There's something that says that 02packages.details.txt is about namespaces which implicitly says it is about modules and not about scripts. Package names within scripts are never a exposed (except the perverse use cases like the user evals the script inside perl or so). > That is, this distribution is: > bin/sleepserver > META.yml > Build.PL > t/00-load.t I think this goes beyond the perl-qa agenda. I'll write you separately about this. > Which means that it can have dependencies and tests. >>> Incidentally, I would love to be able to move forward to the time >>> when there is neither Build.PL nor Makefile.PL. >> Hear, hear! :-) > Is 'dynamic_config: 0' supported? The Build.PL in the above distro is > not really needed. In CPAN.pm it is supported, yes. In the PAUSE I see no use for it because PAUSE takes every META.yml as the best it can get, so. -- andreas
