From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45518) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eoxHj-0004cu-02 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:16:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eoxHe-0000Xm-1g for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:16:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:48986) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eoxHd-0000XT-Sr for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:16:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eoxHd-0007rj-K7 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:16:01 -0500 Subject: [bug#30274] [PATCH 00/21] gnu: Add licensecheck (license checker for source files). Resent-Message-ID: From: Oleg Pykhalov References: <20180128184437.32296-1-go.wigust@gmail.com> <87a7wxrdop.fsf@gmail.com> <87vaep9kg0.fsf@fastmail.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 23:14:56 +0300 In-Reply-To: <87vaep9kg0.fsf@fastmail.com> (Marius Bakke's message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:18:39 +0100") Message-ID: <87o9kgkchr.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Marius Bakke Cc: 30274@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marius Bakke writes: > Oleg Pykhalov writes: > >> The following are new to me, so should I add a "v" in (version =E2=80=A6= ) 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: li= censecheck@3.0.31: can be upgraded to v3.0.31 >> /home/natsu/src/guix-wip-licensecheck/gnu/packages/license.scm:33:2: per= l-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: =2D-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") =2D-8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Oleg. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEc+OyAXw1EaDPCmAPckbhHGm3lWkFAlqPJMAACgkQckbhHGm3 lWlzIxAAnFQrs2DW5yxWs3pOvg7/UTgHVL/YMvmscz83T4rdgXELUSdtT9HbE7ry KUbXFlKWoVgSBXuYRlSiG+NpdnIWKx4F0J/K39sqbOceIU4s6Is1iclV6iwTA/CY rF4PhvTqWNH1zGUp9ejmOKzT63rFMWzIsiXvDaQbQMg1D0EhbEia1CtrlwPFwVTn hrTcrJiv2+4S5FFmnzjGSXTPgw4nunJDFLRFB6MaDnPDe+LoCWoWK/RmBpKLAd9/ qeYHkZrCN2nhu+PaRqnC6J5pcsABABShDeFMYLy6BEaeSD+e/1hW9iAQv9e1k3sk XQByrksKN0G3ES8WTmGP8LOy41saUptiq2Ny01hsNt+COogLYqU2IoCpb6ly8LKZ zmJqkmVEN0FW1ld0cD5875Zy6kAk1WsdCUry9clLaKis2j9QXApbH1Id/Ue5SFow bHzCSSgdd+HCxIMKSp7Q45reInqw8fEOIa21wUb+TtqEryFCImx/snT36uQ43PGZ MnXI3AQw0PCZQ847reY9C1+ToWcGYNPhpDp8UCLzG/WnkMVIjEn+81K8UMc3V2pV xhwMqJgNqPSQjFmYlYr6TaUjyFWWWZDo+qy7gNSsGBKEJuYBsgO74hfEMh8152yc xOL656NhdsyveoEw5dTtDHZV0ab0GbDMDCOEag1FEwBcRhYcptU= =ccBo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--