Moin,
On Thursday 06 July 2006 11:40, David Cantrell wrote:
> Tels wrote:
> > And, "improve compatibility" - with broken systems? OMG. :)
>
> Yeah, you know, like when you comment this out before release :-)
>
> # die("Sorry, you must have a computer to run this software\n")
> # if($^O =~ /win32
Tels wrote:
And, "improve compatibility" - with broken systems? OMG. :)
Yeah, you know, like when you comment this out before release :-)
# die("Sorry, you must have a computer to run this software\n")
# if($^O =~ /win32/i);
Given that Mod::Sig checks are just that the signature is valid,
Define "some" please :)
Ricardo has said he is, for example.
And, "improve compatibility" - with broken systems? OMG. :)
You mean we now don't sign packages anymore just because someone isn't
able to check the signature?
The right way is to tell the user to fix their borken system, not to
Moin,
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 17:56, David Golden wrote:
> Randy J. Ray wrote:
> > I'm a fairly-recent addition to the list. I've read a good part of
> > the
>
> Welcome!
>
> > Secondly, having recently added digital-signing to a few of my
> > modules, perhaps the presence of a SIGNATURE file mi
Randy J. Ray wrote:
I'm a fairly-recent addition to the list. I've read a good part of the
Welcome!
Secondly, having recently added digital-signing to a few of my modules,
perhaps the presence of a SIGNATURE file might be a Kwalitee marker (with
the caveat that it should be an actual Module::
I'm a fairly-recent addition to the list. I've read a good part of the
archives, but not all. So forgive me if what I suggest has already been put
forward and dismissed.
First, not to resume the physical abuse of deceased equines, but just to
briefly address the whole "gaming of CPANTS" matter. W
