Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Deal with version issues in the ecosystem #433

Open
JJ opened this issue Feb 24, 2019 · 5 comments
Open

Deal with version issues in the ecosystem #433

JJ opened this issue Feb 24, 2019 · 5 comments
Labels
Meta Policy, request for comments.

Comments

@JJ
Copy link
Contributor

JJ commented Feb 24, 2019

Right now, zef takes whatever is in the URL pointed to by source-url, as far as I can tell. Distributions are not forced to release via tags, or to announce those releases via META.list. Besides, we don't check for changes in META6.json.
There should be a way of announcing or saying which version is the official. Just adding a version number that should correspond to a tag (and to the version in META6.json) should be enough. Besides, now "version squatting" is possible: just release a new distribution with a later version, and the ecosystem will get yours.
I am kind of aiming at CPANTS, but not only. A sweep and test of all distros would be nice, but as far as I can tell, this is what zef does; that's good and well, but it's not within the ecosystem, or available to the general public (or to other possible dependencies management tools)

@tbrowder
Copy link
Member

tbrowder commented Feb 27, 2019

And I strongly suggest we get rid of the old ecosystem entirely, which is what the original goal was I thought. We should not count anything not on CPAN as "official." Too many modules listed in modules.org don't have test results shown, and too many are not actively supported. [rant completed]

And another thing: the system should use Hjson for the META6.json tests so silly, but common, errors like an extra comma on the last items in lists will not cause failure (a warning msg would be okay, though).

@JJ
Copy link
Contributor Author

JJ commented Feb 27, 2019 via email

@Scimon
Copy link
Contributor

Scimon commented Feb 27, 2019

I think we should keep the Ecosystem functionality as well for a slightly different reason. Even if we ditch the original Ecosystem for OS modules it's a perfect system for internal company modules. This is something I think it would be good to be able to easily support in the future.

@JJ
Copy link
Contributor Author

JJ commented Feb 27, 2019 via email

@Scimon
Copy link
Contributor

Scimon commented Feb 27, 2019

I was investigating this. And the current setup for Ecosystem (Big JSON file of META6.json data) pointing the git repos would be very easy to manage internally with build pipelines.

Then looking at Zef it has a config system with a set of plugins for different possibilties (local cache, Cpan, Ecosystem and a disabled metacpan option). So it should be a case of adding a second Ecosystem plugin to your config that gives the details for your internal Meta Meta Json file.

I was going to talk about this tomorrow but hadn't manage to test all my hypotheses yet to see if it worked the way I expected.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Meta Policy, request for comments.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants