Copying a rhetorical question from #distzilla here, as it warrants a
wider audience. The background is yet another discussion of a kludgy
workaround where an installation with an older JSON parser is tripped by
unicode in META.json. Unicode that doesn't really serve any purpose for
an installing client.

<ribasushi> why do we continue to keep trying to stuff unicode into meta
in the first place?
<ribasushi> the authorship information has nothing to do with
installation time
<ribasushi> we use it for display purposes only (e.g. metacpan)
<ribasushi> anyone considered META.meta or similar?
<ribasushi> I am not even talking about 5.8 at this point - on windows
having unicode in meta will be forever a pain
<ribasushi> ( due to Xmake proliferation and various backwards compat
kludges which leak META into the generated makefile )
<mst> I dunno, my stuff only ever handled it in the first place because
ilmari complained at me
<ribasushi> https://metacpan.org/source/ETHER/Moose-2.1605/META.json
<--- 2600 lines, maybe 20 of them have to do with actual installation
and are expected to be read by *any* installer. The rest... is best
effort anyway, why not separate it and stay happy
<dipsy> [ META.json - metacpan.org ]
<mst> hmm. I bet the original goal was for the META file to be fed into
packaging systems
<ribasushi> right, which was in another era more or less ( no cpanm, no
metacpan, no perl-pkg groups etc )
<ribasushi> perhaps rethinking "Meta for end-user install purposes" and
"Meta for meta" would solve most of the recent repeated breakages by "oh
downstream doesn't like this new thingymagic"


Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 1 of 6 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupcpan-workers @
postedFeb 27, '16 at 11:07a
activeMar 13, '16 at 11:22a



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase