On 2013-03-04 12:29:08, XAOC wrote:
Show quoted text> On Mon Mar 04 02:59:05 2013, XAOC wrote:
> > > Development releases should be marked as such, e.g. by using the
> old
> > > underscore convention (e.g. using a distribution name like Glib-
> > 1.29_01)
> > > or by using the new convention by adding "-TRIAL" to the
> > distribution name.
> >
> > There's also a third way, which is to set 'release_version' to
> > 'unstable' in the META files; this is
> > what we use, and has worked in the past, but it looks like it's
> broken
> > now. I will need to ask
> > upstream to see what's going on.
>
> The problem was with the machine I made the releases on, it had an
> outdated version of
> ExtUtils::MakeMaker, which did not generate META.[yml|json] in the
> correct format.
This sounds familiar. In my Makefile.PLs I put the following lines
before the WriteMakefile() call:
my $eumm_recent_enough = $ExtUtils::MakeMaker::VERSION >= 6.54;
if (!$eumm_recent_enough) {
*MY::dist_core = sub {
<<'EOF';
dist :
$(NOECHO) $(ECHO) "Sorry, use a newer EUMM!"
EOF
};
}
Show quoted text> I'm in the
> process of re-uploading the two -dev releases and deleting the
> existing releases, so that the
> 1.28* releases will show up as stable in CPAN/MetaCPAN, and the 1.29*
> releases will show up
> as Development releases. The deletion of the current 1.29* tarballs
> should take place on
> Thursday, the new tarballs have already been uploaded.
This sounds good.
Regards,
Slaven
