[Bioperl-l] Bioperl versioning
bix at sendu.me.uk
Mon Oct 23 10:41:24 EDT 2006
Chris Fields wrote:
>> Dave Howorth wrote:
>>>>> That's the user point of view - how does the developer actually tell
>>>>> CPAN that something is a developer release so that normal users don't
>>>>> automatically install it?
>>>> I found this:
>>>> Is says that $VERSION should simply be changed from a naked number into
>>>> a single quoted number and this should be recognized by the CPAN
>> Thanks for that.
>> I guess from that the 1.5.2 version number should be:
>> $VERSION = 1.05_02
>> And 1.6 would be
>> $VERSION = 1.06
>> But will this cause a problem wrt 1.4? 1.4 has:
>> $VERSION = 1.4;
>> Is 1.4 lower than 1.06? Should we keep to a single digit version, so
>> 1.5_02 and 1.6? Does this really not work with CPAN? Should we call them
>> version fifty and version sixty? 1.50_02, 1.60?
> Doesn't perl 5.6.1 and up use the 'x.y.z' versioning syntax? It would be
> much simpler to use that.
That does not present us with a way to have 1.5.2 marked as a developer
release in CPAN.
Also, see the discussion here:
Since we require 5.6.1 the backwards-compatible issues maybe don't apply
to us, but do these ideas work with modules, or just Perl itself? Is
CPAN et al. happy with this form of versioning?
/Something/ needs to be done about Bioperl versioning, because the
current 1.4 or 1.5 is completely inadequate.
More information about the Bioperl-l