Why do we keep using META.json for stuff that has nothing to do with installation
[email protected] (Peter Rabbitson) Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:06:53 +0100
| Newsgroups | perl.cpan.workers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Copying a rhetorical question from #distzilla here, as it warrants a wider audience. The background is yet another discussion of a kludgy workaround where an installation with an older JSON parser is tripped by unicode in META.json. Unicode that doesn't really serve any purpose for an installing client. <ribasushi> why do we continue to keep trying to stuff unicode into meta in the first place? <ribasushi> the authorship information has nothing to do with installation time <ribasushi> we use it for display purposes only (e.g. metacpan) <ribasushi> anyone considered META.meta or similar? <ribasushi> I am not even talking about 5.8 at this point - on windows having unicode in meta will be forever a pain <ribasushi> ( due to Xmake proliferation and various backwards compat kludges which leak META into the generated makefile ) <mst> I dunno, my stuff only ever handled it in the first place because ilmari complained at me <ribasushi> https://metacpan.org/source/ETHER/Moose-2.1605/META.json <--- 2600 lines, maybe 20 of them have to do with actual installation and are expected to be read by *any* installer. The rest... is best effort anyway, why not separate it and stay happy <dipsy> [ META.json - metacpan.org ] <mst> hmm. I bet the original goal was for the META file to be fed into packaging systems <ribasushi> right, which was in another era more or less ( no cpanm, no metacpan, no perl-pkg groups etc ) <ribasushi> perhaps rethinking "Meta for end-user install purposes" and "Meta for meta" would solve most of the recent repeated breakages by "oh downstream doesn't like this new thingymagic" Cheers