Front page | perl.perl6.users |
Postings from May 2022
Re: author specification
May 6, 2022 13:49
Re: author specification
Message ID: CAG2CFAa=7BoPGEUZbjEHWQ6Bz7VkN3k=v7N8qJwmhJkbJKhXjw@mail.gmail.com
But I'm understanding from this conversation is that people have different
ideas of what the auth field means.
1. It shows who is responsible for this code. It is independent of which
home the author chooses, where home is GitHub, gitlab, cpan, zef,p6c etc.
2. It shows who is responsible for this code, and its main home. Auth does
not change when stored on other homes.
3. It shows who's responsible for this code in this home. It changes
depending on which home it is being uploaded to.
So it helps to consider some cases and how we handle it.
1. Long time Perl contributor has a CPAN authority, and decides to migrate
all existing projects to github as a main home.
2. Long time perl contributor has a CPAN authority, no Git account (local
development). She decides to distribute new Raku projects in zef primarily,
mirrored in CPAN because she loves metacpan's API and interface.
3. New contributor has modules in GitHub account, is agnostic as to
ecosystems. Wants every ecosystem to reflect latest pushes to main branch
in their git account.
How should the auth field work for these cases?
More cases welcome... (Welcome to the bikeshead? 🚲🏘️🔵💚💜😢)
On Wed, May 4, 2022, 6:43 AM Marcel Timmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Hi Vadim,
> I'd put it this way: this API has not been stabilized yet. Though at the
> moment it's coming to some consensus.
> Hopefully it would not be necessary to change the auth field which is the
> main issue of mine. Because fez is registering the user on its first run,
> the auth field is not needed to find the username later on.
> Come to think of it, starting the auth field with 'fez' when it is stored
> on the fez ecosystem, cpan on the cpan system, etc. is information which is
> redundant. fez is checking the ecosystems one by one to find distributions
> just to find an auth starting with the same name as the ecosystem it is
> Currently the only ecosystem with authentication is zef. In order to
> publish there fez would ask your password once in a while. This is also why
> all other ecosystems are considered deprecated.
> I still have some trouble with fez just because of this auth field I
> think. There are others with the same issue.
> Best regards,
> Vadim Belman
> Thanks for your information, I'll wait for its outcome,
> On May 3, 2022, at 11:59 AM, Marcel Timmerman <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi Brad,
> Auth is for more than just the author. It is for author, authority, and
> There is no password or other cryptographic way, so authentication is not
> possible. Obviously, I might miss some insight here.
> In the documentation I read; ":auth generally takes the form hosting:ID,
> as in github:github-user or gitlab:gitlab-user". For me, hosting is e.g.
> on GitHub or Gitlab to store the software, and ecosystems are for spreading
> the word, i.e. telling that there is a software available somewhere, and
> this somewhere is not important. That is the work for zef to find out.
> And the word 'generally' means that it is just an example, it is in the
> end just a string.
> Furthermore, there is no mention in the docs of any use other than naming
> it in a useful way. No remarks of needing it to login into some ecosystem
> and no word about that separator, being a column, or split it up in more
> than two fields using an other character.
> Searching through some distributions I find 'zef:lizmat', 'github:MARTIMM',
> 'tonyo', 'cpan:WARRINGD', 'github:ccworld1000, firstname.lastname@example.org,
> email@example.com', showing that there is absolutely no clear way to use
> that field. For me, it means again that the auth field must be completely
> free and the same, independent of the ecosystem in use.
> CPAN can't authenticate github or fez modules, and vice versa. There is a
> reason the field is only the first four letters.
> The word 'github' is longer.
> That they are seen as different modules is an intended feature, not a bug.
> I didn't want to say that it was a bug, sorry for the confusion.
> I would like to know how you would want the system to handle a module from
> me. cpan:BGILLS github:b2gills and I intend to get b2gills on fez as well.
> (CPAN doesn't allow numbers, otherwise I would have it there to.)
> Do you want to write several meta files with different auth fields
> depending on the ecosystem you want to send it to? The only thing you can
> do without much work is sending a project e.g. to fez and another to cpan
> but I don't see the use of spreading your projects over several ecosystems.
> Also for a class you wrote, JSON::Class, what should I write (I took it to
> the extreme of course, 'use JSON::Class' would do)
> use JSON::Class:auth<cpan:BGILLS>;
> use JSON::Class:auth<github:b2gills>;
> use JSON::Class:auth<fez:b2gills>;
> All three are getting the same software, or not, when it is someone els-es
> What if someone else took a user name on github that matched one on CPAN
> or fez?
> That is the point I want to make. Keeping the auth field the same
> everywhere, independent of ecosystem, will show that the software is the
> same everywhere. If that someone has the same account name as someone else
> on cpan or fez it will show a difference in the auth field.
> So, I think there is a lot to ponder over....
> On Mon, May 2, 2022, 3:23 PM Marcel Timmerman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I was wondering about the 'auth' specification in the meta file or on the
>> class/module/package. I was used to specify it as 'github:MARTIMM' because
>> I store the stuff on GitHub for all the goodies it offers. Now I see that
>> fez wants to start with 'fez:' and when I look at the raku.land site for a
>> module of mine I see a remark *'*The uploading author of cpan:MARTIMM
>> does not match the META author of github:MARTIMM.' because I upload it to
>> CPAN nowadays and have never specified somewhere that the auth has become
>> I feel that this is not useful (even correct) to pin someone to use an
>> auth specification with a defined prefix for some ecosystem one is using.
>> So changing to another ecosystem forces that person to change the auth
>> everywhere in its code and meta files to get rid of any errors or warnings.
>> Besides that, the change of the author on the same code poses the question
>> later on, if that code is forked and changed by someone else or that it is
>> still the same developer working on it?