[bug#30274] [PATCH 00/21] gnu: Add licensecheck (license checker for source files).

[Marius Bakke]

Oleg Pykhalov <address@hidden> writes:

> 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?

Sorry, I meant the opposite: we don't add the "v" prefix.  It would be
nice to make the CPAN updater aware of that.

> 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---

Let's fix these :-)

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature