Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:20:19 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?VsOhY2xhdiBIYWlzbWFu?= <v.haisman@sh.cvut.cz> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: portupgrade to Perl 5.10.0 ?? Message-ID: <487A1D33.7070209@sh.cvut.cz> In-Reply-To: <84B7D49E-038C-4AEB-A7E8-95135698C4F0@khera.org> References: <200807100340.38399.david@vizion2000.net> <200807110919.50885.david@vizion2000.net> <18551.34465.624986.569002@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <200807111138.36884.david@vizion2000.net> <4877AC3E.3050800@FreeBSD.org> <84B7D49E-038C-4AEB-A7E8-95135698C4F0@khera.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig4837C20AA4F45E00A58819AA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Vivek Khera wrote, On 11.7.2008 21:06: >=20 > On Jul 11, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Remko Lodder wrote: >=20 >> So, when can I expect your updated work on the port, build all=20 >> dependencies to make sure they keep on working etc? I understand that = >> we want to have this as soon as possible, but also do keep in mind=20 >> that we would like to make sure as much as possible that the code can = >> actually work. I am not aware of the reason >=20 > There's no way to do all this testing in a vacuum. Make the port. =20 > Publish it. People who want to try it out will and then all the=20 > dependent ports (ie, CPAN modules) that may have broken can get fixed b= y=20 > a large group of people who may have more time to volunteer. This sounds reasonable to me. What if the ports infrastructure had additional flag, say EXPERIMENTAL. P= orts=20 marked as such would not build/install by default unless something, say=20 ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_PORTS=3Dyes, was defined. That way we (people interest= ed in=20 the port) can work on improving it without burdening users that want just= =20 stable things. Without existing port, even if broken one, nobody can easily start helpin= g,=20 unless the person wants to start over from scratch, which is considerably= =20 harder than starting from semi-finished/working port. >=20 > Seriously, though... is someone actively working on a perl 5.10 port an= d=20 > can we find out what is holding it up for over 6 months now? Around=20 > February I started wondering about it, but it wasn't such a big deal to= =20 > me then. Now it is becoming more of a big deal because our developers = > want to start using some of the 5.10 features in our new projects, but = > without a port/package it complicates our dev and production environmen= t=20 > management. -- VH --------------enig4837C20AA4F45E00A58819AA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) iFYEAREIAAYFAkh6HTkACgkQhQBMvHf/WHnjjwDgtfb5fVG4Y8RMhvlAptcUfJfJ tGxMhprjXtyUuQDfcy1i6W6bQQKqoyxv54yhxAziDa6D6IAGW2FJIg== =WaRg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig4837C20AA4F45E00A58819AA--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?487A1D33.7070209>