Re: META.yml Update Proposal

On 12/4/2003 3:50 PM, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Randy,
> 
> I've a question regarding the 'requires' tag.
> 
> For example, we have Apache::* modules. Some of them can run only under 
> mod_perl 1.0, others only under mod_perl 2.0, and there are those who 
> can run with both generations. The 'requires' tag in your proposal says:
> 
>  I<Note: The exact nature of the fancy specifications like
>  S<C<E<gt>= 1.2, != 1.5, E<lt> 2.0>> is subject to change.  Advance
>  notice will be given here.  The simple specifications like C<1.2>
>  will not change in format.>
> 
> Can this be finalized? Or is it an issue with EU::MM and M::B needing to 
> agree on the advanced syntax of PREREQ_PM?
> 
> We need at least these cases:
> 
> # any
> requires:
>      mod_perl: 1.01
> 
> # only mp1
> requires:
>      mod_perl: < 1.99
> 
> # only mp2
> requires:
>      mod_perl: >= 1.99
> 

IIRC, there was some discussion at some point... ok, right here 
<http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1676522&forum_id=10905>. 
I think Ken was considering other alternatives, so the above was never 
finalized. I think he's on these lists, but I'll cc him and let him respond.

--

Hmm, I also find in this thread something similar to my proposal for 
optional_features suggested by Autrijus. I missed that before.

And in searching I see I also missed this thread 
<http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=1790056&forum_id=10905>. 
Where the provides field was first documented. There is some duplication 
in this and the no_index proposal.

I guess I wasn't as thorough as I thought. :(

Randy.

It would be nice if the module-build ML were on <nntp.perl.org> and 
archived at <http://nntp.x.perl.org/group/>.