Composer has a schema that it reads through whenever it reads a package. It's not a strict schema, but it is nice to have a green light when validating a package.

Currently, when you run composer validate, you get the following errors:

  • Publish Error: name : is missing and it is required
  • Publish Error: description : is missing and it is required
  • No license specified, it is recommended to do so

Comments

mr.baileys’s picture

Agreed that it makes sense to have the composer.json file be valid (although this seems only required when publishing a package).

Tested the patch and confirms that the file is now valid.

My only doubt is whether "drupal/core" would be a better name than "drupal/drupal"?

robloach’s picture

My thinking was that it's http://drupal.org/project/drupal , and not http://drupal.org/project/core . Happy with either one though!

mr.baileys’s picture

Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community

Let's go with drupal/drupal. The name is not cast in stone as long as the package is not published, so if and when we decide to publish we can still discuss naming.

For now, let's just make sure the composer.json file is valid.

webchick’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Needs review

Question. Is it possible to be more specific on the license? As http://drupal.org/licensing/faq points out, our license is not "GPL 2.0" but rather "GPL version 2 or later."

mr.baileys’s picture

StatusFileSize
new428 bytes

Answer. Yes, it is :)

GPL-2.0+ is a valid license notation for composer, see http://getcomposer.org/doc/04-schema.md#license

Updated patch attached.

robloach’s picture

Status: Needs review » Reviewed & tested by the community
webchick’s picture

Status: Reviewed & tested by the community » Fixed

Cool, I'm sure that description could (and probably will ;)) be bikeshedded more but this resolves the immediate issue.

Committed and pushed to 8.x. Thanks!

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.