Re: MetaCPAN vs. uscan

Oups sorry, here is the whole proposition for the list

On 7/11/25 14:43, gregor herrmann wrote:
> Should this mail have gone to the list? If yes I can bounce and reply 
> there :)
> In any case: Sounds good, thanks!
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> gregor
> 
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:41:04 +0200, Yadd wrote:
> 
>> [...]

Hacking the JS looks difficult and unstable (such script may change 
often). I think the best is to transform inside uscan

   https://metacpan.org/release/The::Lib   \
    .*/The-Lib-v?@ANY_VERSION@@ARCHIVE_EXT@$

into

  opts=\
  archmode=plain,\
  downloadurlmangle=s/^.*?\s*"download_url"\s*:\s*"//;s/"\s*$// \
  https://fastapi.metacpan.org/v1/release/The-Lib \
  "download_url"\s*:\s*".*The-Lib-v?@ANY_VERSION@@ARCHIVE_EXT@


In a previous MR (never reviewed...), I replaced uscan-v4 files by a new 
version 5 of debian/watch. Then it was possible to define "macros". Example:

   Version: 5
   Template: GitHub
   Author: yadd
   Project: my-project

Of course, uscan was still able to read version 4 (on-the-fly 
transformation). The adopted format was the common RFC-822 like style.

Then it could have been very easy to define "Metacpan" macro and then 
adapt such changes automatically.

Maybe Brest could be a good place to talk about this

Ref: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/devscripts/-/merge_requests/251