perl-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <>
Subject Re: [mp2] PAUSE indexer issues
Date Sun, 26 Dec 2004 21:05:26 GMT
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Stas Bekman <> writes:
>>Joe Schaefer wrote:
> [...]
>>>I'm asking if changing the Apache::Resource provider from mp1
>>>to mp2 is really what _we_ want to do, now that we know CPAN
>>>will not support multi-versioning prior to mp2's release.
>>why not? Why mp1 should be favored above mp2? 
> It's not about favoritism, it's about stability. 

stability of what? mp2.0.0 should be out in about 2 weeks and I think it's 
just as stable as mp1 wrt prefork functionality.

> The 
> version-qualifier in META.yml's "requires"
>      <URL:>
>      * requires
>        Example:
>            Data::Dumper: 0
>            File::Find: 1.03
>        A YAML mapping indicating the Perl modules this distribution
>        requires for proper operation. The keys are the module names, and
>        the values are version specifications as described in the
>        documentation for Module::Build's "requires" parameter.  
>        Note: the exact nature of the fancy specifications like ">= 1.2,
>        != 1.5, < 2.0" is subject to change. Advance notice will be given
>        here. The simple specifications like "1.2" will not change in format.  
> is a total fscking joke without the corresponding CPAN indexing.
> But since p5p is not going to do that, is there some other way for a 
> third-party module to specify "I require mp1's Apache::Resource"?
> Probably not, if mp2 is occupying the same module/tarball namespaces
> on CPAN. 

If the indexer continues to blindly index the highest number, then it 
certainly won't work. Jos has suggested that the indexer should index all 
live modules in which case this will work just fine.

> I'm not completely convinced that this is a good idea,
> so I'd like to see it discussed (again), now that we are reasonably
> certain about CPAN's functionality.

Autrijus mentioned that he will have time in January to make CPAN do the 
right thing. But since the discussion on p5p shows that nobody wants for 
things to change, and wait for perl6 to solve all the problems, I'm not 
sure what should I tell Autrijus now.

I think it's up to users to make sure that this CPAN problem is not 
dropped again for the third time in the last 3 years that I've been 
raising this issue. There is a pseudo-prototype of how things should be 
working, there is a person who's willing to start implementing things, but 
there are people who don't want things to be changed, just because it 
suits their needs. Oh well, I can spend only so much time on this futile 
issue. I'm moving on and letting others to figure it out.

Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker     mod_perl Guide --->

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message