Re: Fwd: Date::Calc 6.x and Date::Pcalc 6.x
>From what I've read, it means both modules are now the same, except
the namespaces they use are different. I'm not sure if stuff depends
on Pcalc directly vs Date::Calc... but from what he said:
Date::Calc 6.1: contains Date::Calc 6.0 AND Date::Pcalc 6.0. Depending
on availability of a C compiler and user choice, will install either
of the two, INTO THE "Date::Calc" NAMESPACE.
Date::Pcalc 6.1: contains Date::Calc 6.0 AND Date::Pcalc 6.0.
Depending on availability of a C compiler and user choice, will
install either of the two, INTO THE "Date::Pcalc" NAMESPACE.
(This allows to upgrade existing Date::Pcalc installations to a faster
C/XS version without any changes to existing code)
So basically depending which 6.1 package we use (Date::Calc vs
Date::Pcalc), you get the exact same code under a different namespace.
Now, we've got the most recent Pcalc available already uploaded, as
far as I know. This means it's probably unnecessary to upload
Date::Calc, since they are functionally the same (short of a namespace
change).
It pains me to say this, but maybe we can create a native package
under Date::Calc which will just present the Date::Pcalc stuff under
the Date::Calc namespace, in order to maintain compatibility (where
something requires Date::Calc vs Date::Pcalc).
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Guy Hulbert <gwhulbert@eol.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-19-10 at 09:00 -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
>> Thoughts on this, all? I'm still pretty confused, but here's what I
>> got from him:
>
> I read it and it all seems quite straightforward, if a bit complicated
> along the way.
>
> He's made two architectural changes from 6.0 to 6.2.
>
> It seems to me that you just want to use 6.2 and forget about the rest.
> Debian has a C compiler so you should make a single package including
> both pieces.
>
> At least, that's what I got out of it.
>
> --
> --gh
>
>
>
Reply to: