I'm generating the README and README.md from README.pod, and I'd like
to keep all of the source together in the distribution uploaded to
CPAN.  I'll rename it to something unpod-like.

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Dan Book <gri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All .pod files are likely to be indexed by both search engines regardless of
> their location. Metacpan indexes it according to the NAME section but it
> doesn't seem to take precedence over the pod in the module of the same name
> in your case. Either way you should not include .pod files that are not
> namespaced with your modules.
> -Dan
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Diab Jerius <djer...@cfa.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Dan Book <gri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Diab Jerius <djer...@cfa.harvard.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Howdy,
>> >>
>> >> The PDLx-Mask distribution has a README.pod file at the top level, as
>> >> well as actual module documentation in lib/PDLx/Mask.pm.
>> >>
>> >> On the module's main page:
>> >>
>> >>   http://search.cpan.org/~djerius/PDLx-Mask-0.01/
>> >>
>> >> The PDLx::Mask link goes to README.pod, not to lib/PDLx/Mask.pm
>> >>
>> >> That's not quite what I expected, while this
>> >>
>> >>   https://metacpan.org/pod/PDLx::Mask
>> >>
>> >> is.
>> >>
>> >> Should I not be uploading the README.pod file? I use that to
>> >> generate README and README.md.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Diab
>> >
>> >
>> > You should not upload any .pod files in the top level of the
>> > distribution,
>> > as they will get indexed and installed for historical reasons. (Metacpan
>> > sees the name in that document as PDLx::Mask, so it does not override
>> > the
>> > indexed PDLx::Mask documentation in their index. Search.cpan.org clearly
>> > has
>> > different logic we are not privy to.) README.md and README are fine.
>> >
>> > -Dan
>>
>> search.cpan.org is dogged!  moving README.pod to docs/README.pod did
>> not camouflage its prey.
>>
>> I'll rename README.pod and see if that helps...
>
>

Reply via email to