From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Apr 6 06:24:52 1995 Return-Path: ports-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id GAA26371 for ports-outgoing; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 06:24:52 -0700 Received: from aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw ([140.109.40.248]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id GAA26365 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 06:24:48 -0700 Received: (from taob@localhost) by aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw (8.6.11/8.6.9) id VAA15638; Thu, 6 Apr 1995 21:24:34 +0800 Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 21:24:33 +0800 (CST) From: Brian Tao To: FREEBSD-PORTS-L Subject: Re: SATAN ported?? In-Reply-To: <199504061134.EAA23918@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ports-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 6 Apr 1995, Satoshi Asami wrote: > > I'm not sure if I follow your logic here. Just because a piece of > software is unstable doesn't mean we can't make good use of it. But those who absolutely *need* perl5 can still build it themselves, as long as they know about the bugs when using it with the gcc 2.6.3 shared libraries. I'd rather wait for a less buggier version to be placed into ports/packages for the FreeBSD masses. I have not heard any particularly compelling reason to upgrade to perl5 from perl4036. The only reason why I even bothered with 5.0 was to try out SATAN. > (Also, some people desperately > need/want to run Satan by themselves before their system is broken > in....) A binaries package should be perfectly suitable for this. > Yes, a binary package is fine but won't really help people who want to > take a look and fix the bugs. Under 2.0-950322, the fix is trivial. Compiling with gcc 2.6.2 doesn't pose any problems at all. > Also, given the nature of people's > reports, it seems like it is quite a work to make it compile/work on > all different versions of FreeBSD-2.x (2.0R, 0210, 0322, -current, > with or w/o gcc 2.6.3), so we need to coordinate our efforts. This is true. I only have access to 950322 machines now and a patch to get the perl extensions to compile should amount to no more than a well-placed sed command that filters the source before gcc hits it. It still doesn't fix the some of the number formatting problems elsewhere in perl (which cause the failure of certain tests in the testsuite). I'm afraid my C hacking skills aren't good enough to tackle that last problem though, so I have to content myself with mailing a bug report off to Larry and hope he'll come out with a patch himself. -- Brian ("Though this be madness, yet there is method in't") Tao taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw <-- work ........ play --> taob@io.org