Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Is there anything you've said about BackPAN which does not also apply to CPAN?

    Don't forget, a passive repository is harmless /until/ a human (directly or via a program) intervenes...
    • The big difference being that backpan contains all the files deleted from cpan, and those files were deleted for a reason.
      • Not such a difference.

        To delete V 1.00 because V 1.01 is better makes sense, but you're assuming V 1.01 is perfect, whereas in time CPAN (V 1.01) will be deemed just as faulty because V 1.02 will come along...
        • I'm not assuming anything of the kind. I think you've misunderstood.
          • Nope. But I see further discussion is pointless.
            • I'll rephrase what hex said. Sometimes modules (not just releases) are deleted from CPAN. For a reason.
              • Yes, absolutely. I hadn't thought of that, and it's a very serious addition to the point I was making.
            • Look. My point was, files are removed from CPAN because their replacement either (a) adds something new or (b) fixes something wrong. It's the old files with something wrong that we need to be worried about.

              Your comment about deleting V 1.00 because V 1.01 is better really doesn't have anything to do with the point of my journal entry.

        • I don’t see that assumption anywhere.

          The reason for deleting 1.00 and putting up 1.01 may have been that it is known to have contained a catastrophic bug. Whether or not 1.01 is perfect is irrelevant; we don’t know yet. The point is, we do know, and we know right now, that some fraction of the software on BackPAN is dangerous.