Re: The difficulty or ease of packaging Perl/Python/Ruby/PHP applications
>>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:28:34 -0200, "Martín Ferrari" <email@example.com> said:
>> > As I cannot know which module name to look for, I parse the filenames
>> > with CPAN::DistnameInfo to extract dist name and version.
>> This is wrong. The filename can contain anything. The middle column
>> tells you which version of a package is in the tarball.
> The problem is that in Debian we track CPAN distributions and not
> packages (i.e individual .pm's). And the number in the middle I
> understand is the version of the package. If not, i'd happily use it.
> Also, the manpage from DistnameInfo seems to imply that the number in
> the filename is in fact the version of the distribution.
You're right, we're always taking a view that's focussed on modules
and pay less attention to the distribution and the version attached to
it. But your view is of course relevant too.
>> There are four different sorting algorithms: version.pm,
>> CPAN::Version, Sort::Version, Perl::Version. The first one is
>> designated to be the standard sorting method. Not every place has yet
>> adopted this standard because it is new in 5.10 and it needs a lot of
>> time and energy to determine the conflicts arising from a switch. The
>> second is currently used in CPAN.pm. The other two are folklore with
>> their own merits. In the CPAN.pm distribution you find test cases in
>> t/10version.t that demonstrate their subtle differences.
> Thank you very much, this is very valuable insight. I'll start using
> CPAN::Version from now on (if it's the case that CPAN uses CPAN.pm
> code :)).
I tend to value version.pm higher now that 5.10 is out because this
means it has gained some sort of official status. In fact, the indexer
on PAUSE already uses only version.pm. But it only looks at the
version of individual modules, not the one in the distribution name.
So whatever works for you is fine. And if things fall apart, give me