RE: Module submission Proc::PID::File
> having both a Proc::PID_File module and a Proc::PID::File > module doesn't help people. sorry, I didn't explain myself correctly. there will not be 2 modules, only one, reclassified, and Steven has asked me to maintain it. > There's no need for the extra level of name here the space Proc::PID should actually become a family of which File is only a member, there is other PID related functionality that could use that space like Proc::PID::Of - e -Original Message- From: Tim Bunce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 4:48 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Module submission Proc::PID::File On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:38:36AM +0200, Perl Authors Upload Server wrote: > > The following module was proposed for inclusion in the Module List: > > modid: Proc::PID::File > DSLIP: Rdphp > description: check whether a process is already runnning > userid: ECALDER (Erick Calder) > chapterid:4 (Operating_System_Interfaces) > communities: > > similar: > Proc::PID_File - reclassifying > > rationale: > > I've talked to the developer of Proc::PID_File and he has asked me > to maintain and reclassify his Proc::PID_File as Proc::PID::File > which makes more sense. There's no need for the extra level of name here and having both a Proc::PID_File module and a Proc::PID::File module doesn't help people. Whatever the differences in functionality are between the two modules should be expressed somehow in the names. The suggested change doesn't. Tim.
RE: Module submission Proc::PID::File
> I still don't think it's worth an extra level. PID_File and > PID_whatever etc seems just fine to me. There won't be that many > of them. but there's no cost to an extra level, right? and you have the level anyway, it's just that the taxonomy is inconsistent... I mean, if underscores were preferred for levels then we'd call it Proc_PID_File, no? If you object to an extra level then we could just lump that functionality into Proc::PID (which then also have to do other stuff like ::Of) but then you'd be forcing people to have functionality they don't care for. Proc::PID could then have stuff that Proc::PID::File needs, which is as it should be. -Original Message- From: Tim Bunce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 2:31 PM To: Erick Calder Cc: Tim Bunce; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Module submission Proc::PID::File On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 08:58:07AM -0700, Erick Calder wrote: > > having both a Proc::PID_File module and a Proc::PID::File > > module doesn't help people. > > sorry, I didn't explain myself correctly. there will not be 2 modules, only > one, reclassified, and Steven has asked me to maintain it. Okay. > > There's no need for the extra level of name here > > the space Proc::PID should actually become a family of which File is only a > member, there is other PID related functionality that could use that space > like Proc::PID::Of I still don't think it's worth an extra level. PID_File and PID_whatever etc seems just fine to me. There won't be that many of them. Tim. > - e > > -Original Message- > From: Tim Bunce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 4:48 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Module submission Proc::PID::File > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 11:38:36AM +0200, Perl Authors Upload Server wrote: > > > > The following module was proposed for inclusion in the Module List: > > > > modid: Proc::PID::File > > DSLIP: Rdphp > > description: check whether a process is already runnning > > userid: ECALDER (Erick Calder) > > chapterid:4 (Operating_System_Interfaces) > > communities: > > > > similar: > > Proc::PID_File - reclassifying > > > > rationale: > > > > I've talked to the developer of Proc::PID_File and he has asked me > > to maintain and reclassify his Proc::PID_File as Proc::PID::File > > which makes more sense. > > There's no need for the extra level of name here and having both a > Proc::PID_File module and a Proc::PID::File module doesn't help people. > > Whatever the differences in functionality are between the two modules > should be expressed somehow in the names. The suggested change doesn't. > > Tim. >
RE: PAUSE Indexer report E/EC/ECALDER/cpan2rpm-2.011.tar.gz
what does this mean and how do I fix it? -Original Message- From: PAUSE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAUSE Indexer report E/EC/ECALDER/cpan2rpm-2.011.tar.gz The following report has been written by the PAUSE indexer. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there are any open questions. Id: mldistwatch 170 2003-02-11 07:08:07Z k CPAN ID: ECALDER Distribution file: E/EC/ECALDER/cpan2rpm-2.011.tar.gz Number of files: 10 Timestamp of file: Tue Feb 11 10:05:56 2003 UTC Time of this run: Tue Feb 11 10:23:43 2003 UTC No packages could be identified in the distro. Nothing done. __END__
RE: PAUSE Indexer report E/EC/ECALDER/cpan2rpm-2.011.tar.gz
> there's nothing to fix on your side I like that kind of solution :) thx for responding. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andreas J. Koenig Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:29 PM To: Erick Calder Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PAUSE Indexer report E/EC/ECALDER/cpan2rpm-2.011.tar.gz >>>>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 07:56:38 -0800, "Erick Calder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > what does this mean and how do I fix it? The report is misleading, sorry for that. I'll try to change the script that creates it. What it means is that cpan2rpm-2.011.tar.gz does not contain any modules and as such not any package statements. As it is a tarball around a script, this is exactly what you intended and there's nothing to fix on your side. > -Original Message- > From: PAUSE [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 2:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: PAUSE Indexer report E/EC/ECALDER/cpan2rpm-2.011.tar.gz > The following report has been written by the PAUSE indexer. I'll try s/indexer/namespace indexer/ > Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] if there are any open questions. > Id: mldistwatch 170 2003-02-11 07:08:07Z k > CPAN ID: ECALDER > Distribution file: E/EC/ECALDER/cpan2rpm-2.011.tar.gz > Number of files: 10 I'll add a line counting *.pm files. > Timestamp of file: Tue Feb 11 10:05:56 2003 UTC >Time of this run: Tue Feb 11 10:23:43 2003 UTC > No packages could be identified in the distro. Nothing done. I'll try instead if there is at least one *.pm file: No package statements could be found in the distro (maybe a script or documentation distribution?) and will not send a report at all if there is no *.pm file. Other suggestions welcome. -- andreas
