3 packages 1 uniform version

jonasbn has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

I have a problem, which I have somewhat solved, but I am not completely satisfied with the solution since it holds some problems. I have 3 packages defined in separate files, I want these packages to have the same version. My current solution in defining the version in a fourth package:

package PoorMansConfiguration::VERSION;

$VERSION = '1.34';
[download]

Which is then used in the 3 other packages:

BEGIN {
use PoorMans::Configuration::VERSION;
$VERSION = $PoorMans::Configuration::VERSION::VERSION;
};
[download]

The problem with this solution is that is not easily recognized by version parsing code, like the code used by Module::Build. So is there a better way to solve my problem?

Comment on 3 packages 1 uniform version Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: 3 packages 1 uniform version by roboticus (Chancellor) on Feb 08, 2008 at 22:56 UTC
jonasbn: You could put an easily-recognized version statement in your modules, and sync them with a perl one-liner. So if your version statement was always in the form: `$VERSION='1.34';` [download] then you could update all your versions to be the same with: `perl -pi -e 's/^$VERSION='\d\.\d\d';/$VERSION='2.56';/' foo.pl` [download] ...roboticus	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: 3 packages 1 uniform version by jonasbn (Scribe) on Feb 09, 2008 at 22:47 UTC
You gave me a marvelous idea, the updating of the version number is now a part of the distribution building. Thanks for the suggestion, you got me thinking outside the box.	[reply]
Re^3: 3 packages 1 uniform version by Anonymous Monk on Feb 11, 2008 at 07:37 UTC
I do this in all my packages: Create a VERSION.pm containing the following code: `package Foo::VERSION; $VERSION=(qw$Revision: 1.119 $)[1];` [download] Which is updated by cvs everytime I check the package in. In each subpackage I have the following line: `$VERSION = eval { require Foo::VERSION; do $INC{'Foo/VERSION.pm'}};` [download] Must be all on one line if you want it interpreted by CPAN etc.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^4: 3 packages 1 uniform version by polettix (Vicar) on Feb 14, 2008 at 18:56 UTC
Re: 3 packages 1 uniform version by samtregar (Abbot) on Feb 08, 2008 at 22:27 UTC
I usually just leave out versions for subordinate packages. For example, XML::Validator::Schema has a VERSION but XML::Validator::Schema::Parser does not. Is there a reason you need all the packages to have versions? -sam	[reply]
Re^2: 3 packages 1 uniform version by jonasbn (Scribe) on Feb 09, 2008 at 20:38 UTC
Well yes, it is a poor mans configuration management system. So we have a package for each sort of environment we have (dev, test, prod). So the files are versioned as the same version agnostic to the actual environment context they are used in and we can specify the version as a requirement in the actual applications.	[reply]
Re^3: 3 packages 1 uniform version by proceng (Scribe) on Feb 10, 2008 at 17:09 UTC
You did not note what platform... Subversion, CVS and RCS are all good (free) candidates for revision control, with the bonus that each will allow you to add a description of changes and revert to an earlier version if necessary. That way you can check out v1.01 for development (or use a tree setup where v1.0.x is dev, 1.1.x is test, 1.2.x is prod) so that you only have one directory tree to backup/maintain. YMMV ;-)	[reply]