x_static_install needs explanation

[Leont]

It was always intended as a version, but cpanm is currently treating it as a boolean, which is not future-compatible at all.

[miyagawa]

It is only implemented in Menlo, the v2 dev release of cpanm and we can change the implementation without worrying about any consequence.

…

On Tue, Mar 7, 2017, 10:17 AM Leon Timmermans ***@***.***> wrote: It was always intended as a version, but cpanm is currently treating it as a boolean, which is not future-compatible at all. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAANq26sF6gLlPoajV4l3kTg_bM3KeKdks5rjZ8igaJpZM4MV11i> .

[karenetheridge]

FWIW, x_static_install isn't even mentioned by name in the docs. :)

[miyagawa]

This has been clarified and re-implemented in Menlo/cpanm as a version number, and currently only 1 is the supported version number. Other strings/numbers will be ignored and would fallback to the classic builder.

That said the clarification should go into the spec documentation.

[Leont]

I added some prose for this in 478aa5d