develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from October 2016

Re: [perl #129896] the maintainership/upstream situation of theCwd/File::Spec dist is very unclear

Thread Previous
From:
Leon Timmermans
Date:
October 24, 2016 21:41
Subject:
Re: [perl #129896] the maintainership/upstream situation of theCwd/File::Spec dist is very unclear
Message ID:
CAHhgV8g+JUzbsqnqca29gRWogxmWdXZ04Nhoxu5SqZf38AAQnA@mail.gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Christian Walde via RT <
perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote:

> KWILLIAMS is the original author, and has clearly passed his mantle of
> authority on since 2008.
>

Not quite, he's more accurately described as the first packager. File::Spec
has been shipped with core since 5.005 (1998) and dual-lifed by Ken in
2004. In fact it was originally a rib taken out of ExtUtils::MakeMaker
(which is why it inherits from File::Spec).


> Lastly there is the wider question of:
>
> What's this module's life cycle supposed to be?
>
> http://perldoc.perl.org/perlsource.html#Core-modules states things
> clearly for cpan/, but for dist/ it only says the repo is canonical,
> nothing about the life cycle.
>

I think that's because there are various very different reasons for module
to be in dist/. In this particular case it makes sense because it's a
rather mature and stable distribution, and changes are likely to be caused
by porting efforts (such as AmigaOS recently).


> How are releases of File::Spec/Cwd supposed to be handled?
>
> - Primarily with Perl and to CPAN only security/critical fixes?
> - Perl and CPAN in tandem?
> - Primarily CPAN as soon as a release is viable, and in Perl only to keep
> new installs up-to-date?
>

Keeping them in tandem should be the default IMO. I can't see any reason to
not do that in this particular case.

Leon

Thread Previous


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About