On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 12:55:14AM +0200, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:44:12 -0400, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> Also consider the effect of a module that's in the core and not
> >> maintained on CPAN anymore.
>
> > This is a problem with the cor
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:44:12 -0400, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Also consider the effect of a module that's in the core and not
>> maintained on CPAN anymore.
> This is a problem with the core modules I'm trying to correct.
> Ideally, with a few obvious exceptions,
>This also provides an incentive to keep CPAN versions and core
>versions synced.
... which should be enough reason in itself ;)
K.
--
Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://infotrope.net/
"Warning: Netizen may contain traces of nuts."
-- Sharkey (from the Netizen quotes fi
>I submit that the CPAN index should prefer the independent tarball
>version of a module over the perl distribution *even if it is of an
>older version*.
Schwern's logic [snipped] makes sens to me. This seems like a good
idea.
It will get rid of a lot of the CPAN.pm complaints - from those pe
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 07:03:28PM +0200, Andreas J. Koenig wrote:
> Your examples nearly conviced me, but...
>
> What if your module depends on version 2.102 of Data::Dumper? How many
> users will come and ask us where to find 2.102?
That's just trading one problem for another. Currently, they
Your examples nearly conviced me, but...
What if your module depends on version 2.102 of Data::Dumper? How many
users will come and ask us where to find 2.102?
Also consider the effect of a module that's in the core and not
maintained on CPAN anymore. After a while, somebody will complain that
C
