[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#30274] [PATCH 00/21] gnu: Add licensecheck (license checker for sou
From: |
Oleg Pykhalov |
Subject: |
[bug#30274] [PATCH 00/21] gnu: Add licensecheck (license checker for source files). |
Date: |
Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:14:56 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) |
Marius Bakke <address@hidden> writes:
> Oleg Pykhalov <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> The following are new to me, so should I add a "v" in (version …) for
>> those packages? I see for example perl-file-find-object has it.
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> /home/natsu/src/guix-wip-licensecheck/gnu/packages/license.scm:108:2:
>> address@hidden: can be upgraded to v3.0.31
>> /home/natsu/src/guix-wip-licensecheck/gnu/packages/license.scm:33:2:
>> address@hidden: can be upgraded to v3.0.31
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> This is a bug in the CPAN updater. We strip the 'v' prefix from package
> versions, which confuses the updater when upstream uses a 'v' prefix in
> the metadata.
>
> It would be nice to make it ignore that :-)
Sorry, not clear to me. Should I add a "v" prefix to the version field?
I see a bunch of packages packages have "v" prefix:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
./gnu/packages/perl.scm:3599: (version "v2.49.1")
./gnu/packages/perl.scm:7969: (version "v0.0.2")
./gnu/packages/perl.scm:8697: (version "v0.2.13")
./gnu/packages/networking.scm:778: (version "v0.003")
./gnu/packages/mail.scm:1755: (version "v2.9.0")
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Oleg.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature