g-cpan itself has been updated to EAPI=7, but it still generates ebuilds using EAPI-5. (in bin/g-cpan line 698 in master, although I'm using 0.17.0) Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. use g-cpan to generate an ebuild for a Perl module Actual Results: resulting ebuild uses EAPI=5 Expected Results: it should use any EAPI higher than 5, which is pending deprecation.
Created attachment 789908 [details, diff] Patch for EAPI=8 Somewhat surprised this morning when the 100+ gcpan modules I have threw EAPI-5 not supported messages. So I made this patch for app-portage/g-cpan-0.17.0 It updates the generated ebuild files to EAPI 8, with a few changes that I deduced from looking at other perl packages. I placed this in /etc/portage/patches/app-portage/g-cpan-0.17.0 and rebuilt g-cpan. Afterwards I installed Term-Title. Worked.
My Patch has a bug - it does not address change from MODULE_A_EXT to DIST_A_EXT. I'll make a new patch in due course
Created attachment 789911 [details, diff] Updated patch for EAPI=8 Changed all occurrences of MODULE_ to DIST_ I had one package that needed DIST_A_EXT - so that is tested. I don't have packages to test DIST_SECTION - so can't test that
(In reply to Ian Pickworth from comment #3) > Created attachment 789911 [details, diff] [details, diff] > Updated patch for EAPI=8 -# Copyright 1999-2016 Gentoo Foundation +# Copyright 1999-2022 Gentoo Foundation The copyright holder should also be updated (Gentoo Authors). Could you also open an upstream pull request with your fix, please? https://github.com/gentoo-perl/g-cpan
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #4) > > The copyright holder should also be updated (Gentoo Authors). > Just to be sure, do you mean the line should look like this? +# Copyright 1999-2022 Gentoo Authors
(In reply to Ian Pickworth from comment #5) > Just to be sure, do you mean the line should look like this? > > +# Copyright 1999-2022 Gentoo Authors Yes.
Pull request submitted: https://github.com/gentoo-perl/g-cpan/pull/50
*** Bug 856328 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=128d47e603e3d0c43fa4ececc1e15f62961d0b7a commit 128d47e603e3d0c43fa4ececc1e15f62961d0b7a Author: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2022-07-03 22:32:44 +0000 Commit: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2022-07-03 22:32:57 +0000 app-portage/g-cpan: add 0.18.0 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/819513 Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> app-portage/g-cpan/Manifest | 1 + app-portage/g-cpan/g-cpan-0.18.0.ebuild | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ app-portage/g-cpan/g-cpan-9999.ebuild | 25 +++++++------ 3 files changed, 80 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
Big thanks to Ian.
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=6103e4eac8e4a07187cccc324a198a8ad0705c4e commit 6103e4eac8e4a07187cccc324a198a8ad0705c4e Author: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2022-07-03 22:39:22 +0000 Commit: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2022-07-03 22:39:22 +0000 app-portage/g-cpan: add ewarn for recreating overlay/ebuilds Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/819513 Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> .../g-cpan/{g-cpan-0.18.0.ebuild => g-cpan-0.18.0-r1.ebuild} | 12 ++++++++++++ app-portage/g-cpan/g-cpan-9999.ebuild | 12 ++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
Small cosmetic thing: Ebuild generated with g-cpan 0.18.0-r1 still identifies itself with: # Copyright 1999-2022 Gentoo Authors # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 # This ebuild generated by g-cpan 0.17.0
(In reply to Nico Baggus from comment #12) > Small cosmetic thing: > > Ebuild generated with g-cpan 0.18.0-r1 still identifies itself with: > > # Copyright 1999-2022 Gentoo Authors > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 > # This ebuild generated by g-cpan 0.17.0 In bin/g-cpan there is this: our $VERSION = App::gcpan->VERSION(); In lib/App/gcpan.pm there is this: our $VERSION = '0.17.0'; Clearly would be better if it was derived from the version of the installed package. Maybe edited by the e-build. I don't know enough e-build lingo - if someone wants to give me some pointers on how to include some processing directly after the source is prepared I'd be willing to give it a go.
(In reply to Ian Pickworth from comment #13) > Clearly would be better if it was derived from the version of the installed > package. I have just created defect https://bugs.gentoo.org/856541 which provides a patch to the ebuild file to change the version to match the package full version.
