Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread A. Pagaltzis
* Thomas Klausner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-03 15:25]: > metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS > game. I'm checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. > Most don't, because they seem to use 1.0 > Should I switch to 1.0-checking? Is there something broken about 1.0 th

Re: Sort by kwalitee, descending! (Was: CPANTS and META.yml)

2006-11-03 Thread A. Pagaltzis
* Andreas J. Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-04 04:55]: > Sorting by qualitee shows which modules the author loves at the > top and the neglected ones at the bottom. So there is only one > right sort order: by kwalitee, descending. Actually, by kwalitee, descending, then name, ascending. Rega

Sort by kwalitee, descending! (Was: CPANTS and META.yml)

2006-11-03 Thread Andreas J. Koenig
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:47:03 +0100, Thomas Klausner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > said: > Hi! > On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:35:41PM +0100, David Landgren wrote: >> Question: how are the dists sorted on the /author/CPANID page? > Currently random (whatever the DB spits out), but I'll cha

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Christopher H. Laco
Thomas Klausner wrote: > Hi! > > I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to > CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo): > > metayml_is_parsable > metayml_has_license > metayml_conforms_spec > > metayml_has_license now indictes whether there's a computer readable > license in

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Thomas Klausner
Hi! On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 01:00:58PM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote: > Oh so THAT'S where all those reports of "-e META.yml not found" were > coming from. Module::Starter is being naughty and putting META.yml > into the MANIFEST before it exists. Well, after fixing this by removing META.yml

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Michael G Schwern
Thomas Klausner wrote: > Hmm, I tried to do that (I usually use Module::Build): > > ~$ module-starter --module=FooTest --author='foo' --email='[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Created starter directories and files > ~$ cd FooTest/ > ~/FooTest$ perl Makefile.PL > Checking if your kit is complete... > Warning:

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Thomas Klausner
Hi! On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 10:47:36AM -0500, Michael G Schwern wrote: > meta-spec: > url: http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec-v1.2.html > version: 1.2 The 'problem' is that this field was introduced in 1.1, and it seems that quite a lot of dists use 1.0 of META-spec. My

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread David Golden
On 11/3/06, Christopher H. Laco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > meta-spec: > url: http://module-build.sourceforge.net/META-spec-v1.2.html > version: 1.2 The one caution I'd give is around "no_index". The spec always called for "dir" for directories, but CPAN/PAUSE were checking for "d

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Christopher H. Laco
Michael G Schwern wrote: > Christopher H. Laco wrote: >>> Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.0 should pass the 1.0 spec >>> Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.1 should pass the 1.2 spec >> err... >> Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.2 should pass the 1.2 spec >> >> I know what I meant. :-) > > I tho

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Michael G Schwern
Christopher H. Laco wrote: >> Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.0 should pass the 1.0 spec >> Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.1 should pass the 1.2 spec > > err... > Files that declare: --- #YAML:1.2 should pass the 1.2 spec > > I know what I meant. :-) I thought that was the version of YAML

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Christopher H. Laco
Chris Dolan wrote: > On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote: > >> metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm >> checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because >> they seem to use 1.0 >> Should I switch to 1.0-checking? > > No. The CPA

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Thomas Klausner
Hi! On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 03:35:41PM +0100, David Landgren wrote: > Aha, since I have your attention... :-) > I've been meaning to suggest the following changes, on the best and > worst reports pages: > > This distributions got the most Kwalitee: > --> These distributions have the most K

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Christopher H. Laco
Thomas Klausner wrote: > Hi! > > I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to > CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo): > > metayml_is_parsable > metayml_has_license > metayml_conforms_spec > > metayml_has_license now indictes whether there's a computer readable > license in

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Christopher H. Laco
Christopher H. Laco wrote: > Chris Dolan wrote: >> On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote: >> >>> metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm >>> checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because >>> they seem to use 1.0 >>> Should I switch

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Christopher H. Laco
Christopher H. Laco wrote: > Thomas Klausner wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to >> CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo): >> >> metayml_is_parsable >> metayml_has_license >> metayml_conforms_spec >> >> metayml_has_license now indictes whether ther

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Christopher H. Laco
Chris Dolan wrote: > On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote: > >> metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm >> checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because >> they seem to use 1.0 >> Should I switch to 1.0-checking? > > No. The CPA

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread David Landgren
Thomas Klausner wrote: Hi! I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo): Aha, since I have your attention... I've been meaning to suggest the following changes, on the best and worst reports pages: This distributions got the most

Re: CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Chris Dolan
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote: metayml_conforms_spec currently very much busts the CPANTS game. I'm checking if the files comply to META.yml spec 1.2. Most don't, because they seem to use 1.0 Should I switch to 1.0-checking? No. The CPANTS game is a tool for change. We m

CPANTS and META.yml

2006-11-03 Thread Thomas Klausner
Hi! I had some time recently and added some first META.yml checking to CPANTS (with the help of Gabor Szabo): metayml_is_parsable metayml_has_license metayml_conforms_spec metayml_has_license now indictes whether there's a computer readable license in META.yml, while (the also new metric) has_hu

Re: CPAN code searches

2006-11-03 Thread Smylers
Michael G Schwern writes: > A few people have asked how I do my CPAN scans. I keep a minicpan > handy and have a little script called "grep_cpan" ... > > http://schwern.org/src/grep_cpan 404. But this works: http://www.schwern.org/~schwern/src/grep_cpan Smylers

Re: Integrating Test::Run into an ExtUtils::MakeMaker+Test::Manifest Setup

2006-11-03 Thread brian d foy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Shlomi Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See http://xrl.us/sw5o for a recipe for integrating "make runtest" and "make > distruntest" targets into a Makefile.PL-generated Makefile that makes use of > Test::Manifest. That Test::Manifest stuff in XML::RSS is old. I

Re: recursive_test_files in Module::Build and in ExtUtils::MakeMaker

2006-11-03 Thread brian d foy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Golden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/2/06, Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not an EU::MM bug -- it's a new M::B feature. > > What should you do? You're not going to like this answer: > > Don't use recursive test directories. :-) > Does