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

[Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1400 bytes --]

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:

> Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust@gmail.com> 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: licensecheck@3.0.31: can be upgraded to v3.0.31
>> /home/natsu/src/guix-wip-licensecheck/gnu/packages/license.scm:33:2: perl-regexp-pattern-license@3.0.31: 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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]