Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2013
From: Chris 'BinGOs' Williams
July 3, 2013 20:03
Message ID: 20130703200332.GA22934@klanker.bingosnet.co.uk
----- Forwarded message from Neil Bowers <firstname.lastname@example.org> -----
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 00:13:16 +0100
From: Neil Bowers <email@example.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
I have a couple of questions about upstream -- I'm still mapping out my
understanding of core modules :-)
(1) What's the correct interpretation of a core module not being
The doc for Module::CoreList says:
A hash that contains information on where patches should be
for each core module.
On first reading, this implied that every core module would appear
But since that's not true, what's the correct interpretation for modules
not in %upstream?
The doc also says:
"undef" implies that this hasn't been discussed for the module at
So perhaps it could be taken like this, but I could also see an argument
for the default being 'blead'.
Would you like a patch for Module::CoreList?
(a) to add the missing modules, or
(b) to change the doc to explicitly defined the interpretation for a
module that isn't listed?
For example, Getopt::Std isn't in %upstream. It doesn't exist separately
on CPAN, but I notice that 06perms.txt says:
Which is curious. Why do those people all have perms for a module that's
only ever been a core module (I believe)?
And what's the difference between 'P5P' and 'perl'?
(2) What if I want to patch a module with undef in %upstream?
If I want to patch a module that is in %upstream with a value of undef,
should I raise it on p5p, or just submit a patch as if it was 'blead',
but note that upstream isn't defined? eg parent.
(3) Should I have emailed this to p5p?
You're listed in Porting/Maintainers.pl as the maintainer
for Module::CoreList, which is why I'm emailing you.
----- End forwarded message -----
These questions are best asked on p5p list.
PGP ID 0x4658671F
by Chris 'BinGOs' Williams