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

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

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Christian Walde via RT
October 25, 2016 08:38
[perl #129896] the maintainership/upstream situation of theCwd/File::Spec dist is very unclear
Message ID:
On Mon Oct 24 12:14:43 2016, wrote:
> [...]

I saw these mails as public-record outreach in the vein of modules@-related emails, but next time i consider something like this i'll verify with p5p people first whether it's appropiate. Thanks for the note. :)

On Mon Oct 24 14:41:55 2016, LeonT wrote:
> Not quite, he's more accurately described as the first packager.

Thanks for that correction, i had indeed misunderstood that.

> 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).

Looking at the other entries in it is absolutely clear why this one isn't in there: It's not only mirrored perl core (/cpan), it is not core-only (/lib, /ext).

I don't think there are any other reasons.

However because of that the exact nature of its lifecycle must be questioned, and once determined, documented.

> > - 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.

So you're saying new releases of Pathtools on CPAN should not happen for bugfixes, only for Perl releases and security fixes?

via perlbug:  queue: perl5 status: open

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About