[Bioperl-l] Bioperl versioning
dhoworth at mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk
Mon Oct 23 15:55:42 UTC 2006
Sendu Bala wrote:
> 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
I believe so - the underscore is key. Look at your favourite CPAN
modules and see what they do.
>>> And 1.6 would be
>>> $VERSION = 1.06
>>> But will this cause a problem wrt 1.4? 1.4 has:
I think it will cause a problem, yes. 1.4 > 1.06 As a workaround, you
could remove 1.4 from CPAN and require everybody who installs from CPAN
to uninstall it before installing 1.06.
>>> $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?
I think that would work but see at the end.
>> Should we call them
>>> version fifty and version sixty? 1.50_02, 1.60?
Then you can count 1.50_02, 1.50_03, 1.52, 1.53_01 ... if you wish.
>> 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?
I'm not an expert :( It's my understanding that there is an awful lot of
flexibility in Perl module version numbering (as you might expect :)
However, I believe there are some gotchas. So I would recommend (a)
finding an expert and (b) trying an experiment!
> /Something/ needs to be done about Bioperl versioning, because the
> current 1.4 or 1.5 is completely inadequate.
> Bioperl-l mailing list
> Bioperl-l at lists.open-bio.org
More information about the Bioperl-l